## Facts

- Debra Schlotfeldt voluntarily presented to Charter Hospital of Las Vegas on March 4, 1989, for treatment related to substance abuse and mental health concerns.
- Charter staff observed severe depression, rapid emotional changes, substance abuse, and reported suicidal thoughts; clinicians diagnosed major depression with suicidal ideation.
- Schlotfeldt signed voluntary admission papers authorizing treatment as ordered by the attending physician.
- On March 5, 1989, psychiatrist Dr. Gilles M.K. Desmarais examined Schlotfeldt after being asked to see her when another Charter psychiatrist was busy; Charter asserted Desmarais was an independent physician.
- Desmarais concluded Schlotfeldt was a suicide risk and urged her to remain voluntarily until her husband returned.
- After the morning of March 5, Schlotfeldt repeatedly asked to leave; she was discharged roughly 66 hours after admission.
- Schlotfeldt sued Charter and Desmarais, alleging (among other claims) false imprisonment based on her continued confinement after requesting discharge.
- At trial, the court ruled as a matter of law that Charter was vicariously liable for Desmarais’s conduct and instructed the jury accordingly.
- The jury found both Charter and Desmarais liable for false imprisonment and awarded Schlotfeldt $50,000.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by deciding, as a matter of law, that Charter was vicariously liable for Dr. Desmarais’s acts rather than submitting the agency vs. independent-contractor question to the jury.
2. Whether the false-imprisonment verdict against Charter could stand given the vicarious-liability instruction that removed a disputed factual issue from the jury.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court held that the nature of the relationship between Charter and Desmarais (agent/employee vs. independent contractor) presented a factual question for the jury on this record.
- The trial court’s instruction imposing vicarious liability as a matter of law was erroneous and prejudicial.
- The judgment against Charter on the false-imprisonment claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial as to Charter.
- The court’s disposition focused on Charter’s liability; Charter’s responsibility could not be fixed without a proper jury determination of Desmarais’s status.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment is an unlawful restraint of personal liberty or freedom of movement; it requires intentional confinement without legal justification.
- In hospital–physician cases, agency turns on the degree of control the hospital exercises over the physician’s work, including control over the means and manner of performance.
- When evidence regarding agency vs. independent-contractor status permits competing inferences, the question is for the jury rather than the court as a matter of law.
- A jury instruction that conclusively establishes vicarious liability, while the underlying agency relationship is reasonably disputable, constitutes reversible error.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the false-imprisonment judgment against the hospital because the trial court improperly removed the disputed agency question from the jury by instructing that the hospital was vicariously liable for the psychiatrist’s acts as a matter of law.


Schlotfeldt v. Charter Hosp. of Las Vegas, 910 P.2d 271 (Nev. 1996)