Kavanaugh v. Nussbaum, 71 N.Y.2d 535 (1988)
A physician who arranges for another doctor to “cover” for them is not vicariously liable for the covering doctor’s independent negligence in treating the regular physician’s patient, absent a legal relationship like partnership, employment, or agency.
Summary
This case addresses the vicarious liability of a physician for the negligence of a covering doctor. Irene Gonzales, a patient of Dr. Caypinar, experienced complications during pregnancy. Dr. Caypinar, who was at a meeting, had Dr. Swenson covering for him. An emergency room physician, Dr. Suteethorn, consulted with Dr. Swenson, who advised sending Gonzales home. After further complications, Gonzales gave birth to a child, Justin Kavanaugh, who suffered severe injuries. The jury found Dr. Caypinar negligent but also found Dr. Swenson negligent and imputed 25% of Dr. Caypinar’s liability to Dr. Swenson’s negligence. The Court of Appeals reversed the imputation of liability, holding that a covering physician arrangement, without more, does not create vicarious liability.
Facts
Irene Gonzales engaged Dr. Caypinar as her obstetrician after another doctor failed to diagnose her pregnancy. Gonzales, 44 years old with a history of staining and elevated blood pressure, visited Dr. Caypinar twice. On December 15, she experienced significant bleeding and went to the Brookhaven Hospital emergency room, where Dr. Suteethorn examined her. Dr. Caypinar was unavailable and had arranged for Dr. Swenson to cover for him. Dr. Suteethorn consulted with Dr. Swenson, who instructed him to send Gonzales home. Gonzales returned to the hospital later that night with increased bleeding and was admitted. Her child, Justin, was born prematurely with severe injuries.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs sued Drs. Caypinar and Suteethorn, and Brookhaven Hospital. The jury found Dr. Caypinar negligent on multiple grounds, Dr. Suteethorn negligent, and also found Dr. Swenson negligent, imputing a portion of Dr. Caypinar’s liability to Dr. Swenson’s negligence. The trial court denied motions challenging the findings but adjusted the damages. The Appellate Division sustained the judgment as to liability and certain damages. The Court of Appeals granted defendants’ motions for leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a physician who arranges for another physician to cover for them is vicariously liable for the covering doctor’s independent negligence in treating the regular physician’s patient, when there is no traditional legal relationship such as partnership, employment, or agency.
Holding
No, because vicarious liability requires a showing of agency or control, which is absent in a typical covering physician arrangement where physicians independently cover for one another.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the absence of agency or control between Dr. Caypinar and Dr. Swenson. The court emphasized that vicarious liability rests on the notion of control, citing Graddy v. New York Medical College, 19 A.D.2d 426, which held that vicarious liability should not be extended where there is neither legal nor actual control of the treating physician by the other physician. The court distinguished the covering arrangement from partnerships or joint ventures, which involve a sharing of property and risks. The court reasoned that extending vicarious liability to covering physicians would discourage physicians from arranging coverage for their patients, potentially curtailing medical service availability. Quoting Graddy, the Court noted that imposing enlarged liability would “tend to discourage a physician from arranging to have another care for his patients on his illness or absence and thus curtail the availability of medical service.” The court emphasized that doctors remain liable for their own negligence in designating covering doctors or for joint participation in treatment. The court concluded that while Dr. Caypinar was negligent in other respects, the imputation of Dr. Swenson’s negligence was incorrect. The court remanded the case for a new apportionment of damages between the defendants, excluding vicarious liability for Dr. Swenson’s negligence.