## Facts

- Waymond Bryant and Cid Edwards, professional football players for the Chicago Bears, alleged negligent diagnosis and treatment of their football-related injuries by Dr. Theodore A. Fox.
- Fox was retained by the Chicago Bears as team physician, received an annual retainer, and also maintained a separate medical practice.
- The players alleged Fox was required to treat injured players when requested during the season and off-season and to report player treatment to Bears management.
- The players sued Fox for medical malpractice and sued the Bears under respondeat superior, alleging Fox functioned as the Bears’ employee or agent when treating players.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts to permit an inference that Fox was the Bears’ employee or agent (rather than an independent contractor) such that the Bears could be vicariously liable for alleged malpractice.
2. Whether dismissal at the pleading stage was proper given the allegations regarding the Bears’ relationship with Fox and Fox’s obligations to treat players and report to management.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the claims.
- The court held the complaint sufficiently pleaded facts that, if proved, could establish an employment or agency relationship supporting respondeat superior liability against the Bears.
- The malpractice claim against Fox was reinstated to proceed on the merits.
- The cause was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Respondeat superior liability depends on whether an employer–employee or principal–agent relationship exists, commonly evaluated by the alleged principal’s right to control the manner of work, along with other relationship factors.
- A physician’s professional status and exercise of medical judgment do not categorically preclude an employment or agency relationship with an organization that retains the physician.
- Whether a worker is an employee/agent or an independent contractor is generally a fact question not ordinarily resolved on a motion to dismiss.
- On a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded facts are taken as true and dismissal is improper unless it is clear the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief under a recognized legal theory.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the players’ allegations about the Bears’ retention of the team physician, his ongoing obligations to treat players, and reporting duties were sufficient at the pleading stage to allow both the malpractice claim and the vicarious-liability claim to proceed to fact development on whether an agency or employment relationship existed.


Bryant v. Fox, 162 Ill. App. 3d 46, 515 N.E.2d 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1987)