Roessler v. Novak
Florida District Court of Appeal
858 So.2d 1158 (2003)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Roessler (plaintiff) was admitted to Sarasota Memorial Hospital (defendant), where his diagnostic scans were read by Dr. Lichtenstein. Roessler underwent surgery, and suffered severe complications. Roessler brought suit against Sarasota Memorial, alleging that Dr. Lichtenstein was negligent in misinterpreting Roessler’s scans. Roessler argued that Sarasota Memorial was vicariously liable because Dr. Lichtenstein was acting as the hospital’s agent. At the time of the incident, Dr. Lichtenstein was associated with SMH Radiology Associates, an association of radiologists. SMH Radiology had an independent contractor agreement with Sarasota Memorial, and provided all of the hospital’s radiological services. SMH Radiology and Dr. Lichtenstein both had offices solely within Sarasota Memorial. The trial court granted summary judgment for Sarasota Memorial after finding that Dr. Lichtenstein was an independent contractor, and not an agent or employee of the hospital.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Salcines, J.)
Concurrence (Altenbernd, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.