Virtues and Values

Respondeat Superior is a legal doctrine that holds the employer liable for the employee's action. The doctrine is also referred to as the master-servant rule, as the employer can only be held liable for the torts committed by the employee if there exists a master-servant relationship (Pozgar, 2012). According to the doctrine, the employer will be held liable in certain circumstances for the employer's actions. In a healthcare setting, the organization is held liable for the wrongful acts of the employees. This is whether the organization is in the wrong or not.

Respondeat Superior is a common law doctrine that means 'let the master answer.'The doctrine can only be applied under certain conditions. The two conditions are; that there must exist a master-servant relationship between the employer and the employee, and the illegal act of the employee must have happened during the scope of employment (Pozgar, 2012). The question of liability is whether the employer had control over the acts of an employee. In normal employment, the employer will have control over all the employee's actions. This is based on the duties and responsibilities the employer has given the employee.

The doctrine relies on the vicarious theory of liability (Thornton, 2010). The doctrine of vicarious liability is a rule of responsibility where the defender may be held liable for the actions of another. The theory of vicarious liability is not based on finding improper action by the employer. Actually, the employer has the best interests when they can hire, train, supervise, and retain the employee. However, all these are irrelevant as the assumption of Respondeat Superior is the cost of the torts committed in the conduct of a business enterprise (Thornton, 2010). Therefore, based on vicarious liability, the cost of the torts committed is borne by the employer as the torts were committed during the course of business.

The employee should be able to perform their duties according to the duties given by the employee. Therefore, any wrongful acts committed during the employment will fall under the doctrine as they are within the scope of the employment. However, independent contractors are different as they are liable for their actions. In a healthcare setting, questions will arise about whether the organization has control over the activities of the contractor. In most cases, the organization has limited control over the contractor's actions. The independent agents are usually responsible for their own actions. The organization will have control over the physical acts of its own employers. Visiting and attending doctors are considered independent contractors and must bear full liability when sued for malpractice.

Tort Liability

A tort is an act or omission that leads to injury or harm to others, amounting to a civil wrong. Courts will usually impose liability due to the injury or harm caused by the act or omission. The liability is imposed on the persons responsible for the harm to deter them and others from committing harmful acts. The burden of loss is shifted from the injured party to the person at fault, who may be a person or organization. The most common type of tort in healthcare is the negligent tort. This is the most common type of liability of healthcare organizations and professionals. This is where the actions of the health professional were unreasonably unsafe.

Independent Contractors

The relationship between the doctrine of Respondeat Superior and independent contractors is in who bears the liability. An independent contractor is defined as a person who will perform work for another person. They agree to undertake work without the direct control of the client. The independent contractor will perform the work based on their processes and methods. The independent contractor will carry out business on their own accord. The independent contractor is usually under no control over the client, who is the business owner. They are bound under the terms of their contract with the client. The client will have no control over the manner in which the independent contractor performs their work.

The independent contractor is personally liable for their negligent acts (Pozgar, 2012). This is because the independent contractor is negligible for their acts. However, there are scenarios where the client may be liable for the independent contractor's actions. The scenarios may be when the client has direct control over what the independent contractor does. The contract may limit some of the duties of the independent contractor and hand over most of the control to the client. An organization may employ a doctor as an independent contractor and maintain most of the duties for the organization. The hospital employs those surrounding the doctor, and any negligent action in the department will lead to the hospital being held liable. In the case of Mehlman v. Powell, the court ruled that the hospital was liable for the actions of the emergency department (Pozgar, 2012). This is because of the hospital-maintained control over various aspects of the emergency department, including billing procedures.

The independent contractor relationship can only be established when the client has no control over the manner in which the agent performs their job. This means the contractor has the expertise to perform their role as per the contract with the client. In a hospital setting, an independent contractor's negligible acts or omissions will mean that the liability is on the independent contractor and not the organization. Physicians who the hospital employs are not independent contractors. However, physicians who are independent contractors are liable for their acts and omissions that may cause harm to the patient.

Respondeat Superior in Healthcare

The doctrine of Respondeat Superior applies to hospitals, attending physicians and surgeons, resident physicians, and allied hospital staff (Shenoy et al., 2021). Today, resident physicians are held accountable for their own actions as attending physicians. They are theoretically accountable for their acts and omissions. In surgery, the attending surgeon is vicariously liable for acts or omissions of the surgical residents. All these cases in the healthcare context show that under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, the employer is liable for the employee's negligent acts while acting on the scope of employment. The application of vicarious liability in hospitals implies that hospitals and physicians may be responsible for the negligent acts of their subordinates (Shenoy et al., 2021). This includes; physician-hospital relationships, physician-technologist relationships, and others. The application of Respondeat Superior means that all persons are held liable for the actions of those who are answerable for them.

There are cases where hospitals are held accountable for independent contractors. Courts will use three tests to hold hospitals liable for the acts of independent contractors. The tests include; apparent agency, control test, and non-delegable duty of the hospital for patient care. Anesthesia is looked like an independent specialty which is different from surgery. Therefore, the anesthetist is held accountable for the anesthesia administered to the patient. Three distinct roles emerge in a hospital setting: employer-employee, principle-agent, and owner-independent contractor. The employer and principal are held liable for the negligent acts or omissions of the employee and agents.

References