holding that an HMO may be held liable for malpractice under an ostensible agency theory where a patient looks to the HMO for care and the HMO's conduct leads the patient to reasonably believe that he or she is being treated by an employee of the HMO
How later courts described this case
- holding that an HMO may be held liable for malpractice under an ostensible agency theory where a patient looks to the HMO for care and the HMO's conduct leads the patient to reasonably believe that he or she is being treated by an employee of the HMO
- summary judgment reversed where issue of material fact existed as to whether physicians were ostensible agents of HMO
- the doctrine of ostensible agency was made applicable to HMOs
- citations, internal punctuation omitted
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McEWEN, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority since the author, after a very careful analysis of the issues presented in this appeal, reaches the quite basic principle that issues of material fact may not be resolved by summary judgment.
I write only because it appears to me that the learned trial court improperly resolved by summary judgment the basic factual issue of whether the literature, in which HMO “guaranteed” and “assured” the quality of care provided to its subscribers, had been distributed to appellant or to other subscribers of HMO.
It might also be mentioned that while the court was understandably uncertain as to the theories upon which plaintiff was proceeding 1 , it appears that the amended complaint of plaintiff does contain factual averments supporting a breach of warranty claim. See: Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity v. University of Pennsylvania, 318 Pa.Super. 293, 298 , 464 A.2d 1349, 1352 (1983) (“Pennsylva *623 nia is a fact-pleading state.”). Accord: Smith v. Brown, 283 Pa.Super. 116, 119 , 423 A.2d 743, 745 (1980).
. The trial court noted in its opinion that "the gravamen of plaintiffs complaint is that HMO of PA guaranteed or warranted the quality of care provided---- Plaintiffs theory of recovery ... is not entirely clear. A reading of the complaint suggests Plaintiff is proceeding upon grounds of corporate liability. However, in his answer to the motion of HMO of PA for summary judgment, plaintiff contends HMO of PA is vicariously liable through ostensible agency."