## Facts

- Klaus Roessler was evaluated at the Sarasota Family Walk-In Clinic after imaging suggested a “perforated viscus and pneumonia,” a potentially life-threatening condition requiring immediate surgical evaluation.
- The clinic directed Roessler to Sarasota Memorial Hospital’s emergency room, and he went directly there and was admitted as an inpatient.
- While hospitalized, Roessler underwent abdominal CT (CAT) scans in the hospital’s radiology department.
- Dr. Richard J. Lichtenstein, the radiologist on duty at Sarasota Memorial when the scans were ready for interpretation, read the scans.
- At the time, Dr. Lichtenstein was associated with SMH Radiology Associates, P.A., which had an independent-contractor agreement with Sarasota Memorial to provide all radiology services for the hospital on a 24/7 basis.
- SMH Radiology Associates and its radiologists had offices located solely within Sarasota Memorial Hospital.
- Roessler later underwent surgery and suffered severe complications, resulting in an extended hospitalization.
- Roessler sued multiple defendants, including Sarasota County Public Hospital d/b/a Sarasota Memorial Hospital, alleging Dr. Lichtenstein negligently misinterpreted the scans and that the hospital was vicariously liable because the radiologist acted as the hospital’s agent (including under an apparent-agency theory).
- The trial court entered summary final judgment for Sarasota Memorial on the vicarious-liability count after concluding Dr. Lichtenstein was an independent contractor rather than the hospital’s employee or agent.
- Roessler appealed. (His complaint also included a separate spoliation count against the hospital, which the appellate court treated as distinct from the vicarious-liability claim for appealability purposes.)

## Issues

1. Can a hospital be vicariously liable under apparent agency for alleged negligence of an independent-contractor radiologist who provided on-site services through an exclusive hospital contract?
2. Did the summary-judgment record create a genuine issue of material fact on the elements of apparent authority (hospital representation, patient reliance, and resulting change in position), making summary judgment improper?

## Decision

- The Second District treated the order as an appealable partial final judgment because the vicarious-liability and spoliation counts were distinct and not factually interrelated.
- The court reversed the summary final judgment for Sarasota Memorial on the vicarious-liability claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the independent-contractor status of the radiologist and radiology group did not, by itself, defeat vicarious liability as a matter of law.
- The court concluded that the circumstances—radiology services provided inside the hospital by the on-duty radiologist from the hospital’s exclusive radiology contractor—allowed competing inferences on whether the hospital held the radiologist out as its agent and whether Roessler relied on that appearance.
- Chief Judge Altenbernd concurred, noting concern about applying apparent-agency concepts in modern hospitals with many coordinated independent contractors, but agreeing that existing Florida law required reversal on this record.

## Legal Principles

- Apparent authority requires: (1) a representation by the purported principal, (2) reliance on that representation by the third party, and (3) a change in position by the third party in reliance on the representation.
- A hospital may face vicarious liability for medical negligence committed by an independent-contractor physician if the physician acted with the hospital’s apparent authority.
- Contract labels (such as “independent contractor”) are not conclusive against a patient; the focus is on the hospital’s conduct and whether it reasonably led the patient to accept treatment as hospital-provided care.
- Whether a physician acted with a hospital’s apparent authority is commonly fact-dependent; summary judgment is improper when reasonable inferences from the record could support either side on the apparent-agency elements.

## Conclusion

In Roessler v. Novak, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Sarasota Memorial Hospital because the record permitted a jury to find that an on-duty radiologist—supplied through the hospital’s exclusive, on-site radiology contractor—appeared to act as the hospital’s agent and that Roessler relied on that appearance in accepting radiology services while hospitalized; these disputed inferences required remand for factfinding on vicarious liability.


Roessler v. Novak, 858 So.2d 1158 (2003)