## Facts

- Aleksandr Popovich, age 38, sought emergency care twice on February 9, 2016, at two hospitals owned and operated by Allina Health System.
- During the first visit (Unity Hospital), he reported dizziness, loss of balance, blurry vision, and trouble breathing; a physician ordered a head CT that was read by a radiologist, and he was discharged after about two hours.
- Later that morning, he became unresponsive and was transported to the emergency room at Mercy Hospital; a second head CT was ordered and reviewed along with the earlier scan, with abnormalities and increased brain swelling noted.
- He was transferred to another Allina hospital (Abbott Northwestern), where physicians diagnosed a left proximal vertebral artery dissection with thrombus.
- He suffered a stroke resulting in permanent brain damage.
- The emergency physicians who treated him were employed by Emergency Physicians Professional Association (EPPA), and the radiologists were employed by Suburban Radiologic Consultants; both groups contracted with Allina, and the clinicians were independent contractors rather than Allina employees.
- His wife, acting as guardian, sued for medical malpractice and sought to hold Allina vicariously liable for the clinicians’ alleged negligence under apparent authority.

## Issues

1. Whether Minnesota law permits a hospital to be held vicariously liable for the negligence of independent-contractor physicians (and similar providers) under the doctrine of apparent authority.
2. If apparent authority applies, what reliance standard governs in the hospital–patient context, including whether proof of “but-for” subjective reliance (that the patient would have refused care if informed of independent-contractor status) is required.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that a hospital may be vicariously liable for an independent contractor’s professional negligence based on apparent authority.
- The court rejected a categorical rule limiting hospital vicarious liability to negligence by hospital employees.
- The court adopted an objective, reasonable-belief/justifiable-reliance approach and rejected a strict “would have refused treatment” reliance requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Apparent authority may support vicarious liability when the principal’s conduct would lead a reasonable person to believe the actor is acting on the principal’s behalf, and the third party reasonably relies on that appearance to their detriment.
- In the hospital setting, a plaintiff must show:
  - the hospital held itself out as the provider of care (or otherwise created a reasonable appearance that the clinician acted for the hospital); and
  - the patient reasonably believed the clinician was acting on the hospital’s behalf and justifiably relied on that belief in seeking or accepting treatment.
- Reliance in this context does not require proof that the patient would have declined treatment if told the clinician was an independent contractor; the inquiry centers on objective reasonableness given the circumstances (including emergency care where patients typically do not choose individual clinicians).

## Conclusion

The court recognized apparent-authority vicarious liability for hospitals whose conduct leads patients reasonably to believe independent-contractor clinicians are hospital agents, and it remanded for fact development under an objective reasonable-reliance standard rather than a but-for refusal-of-care test.


Popovich v. Allina Health Sys., 946 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 2020)