LEGAL COMMENTARY: The court found that a plaintiff may pursue a claim based upon agency by estoppel against a hospital even if it has not named an independent contractor tortfeasor as a party and/or a claim against the tortfeasor is not viable, if the hospital meets the criteria in the case of Clark v.
The court held, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not carry his burden of establishing evidence of the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the applicability of either the doctrine of apparent authority or the doctrine of agency by estoppel. The court noted that in particular the plaintiff specifically presented an issue to the trial court in terms whether he could prevail under "the apparent authority theory ..." or on "[t]he agency by estoppel theory ..." The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the trial court erred in not ordering the hospital to produce advertising predated Ms.