In January 2017, Danielle Sebble underwent spinal surgery at a Florida-based medical center due to chronic neck and back pain. The procedure was performed by a physician who was not an employee of the hospital but was credentialed to practice there. Following the surgery, Sebble continued to experience ongoing and worsening pain in her left lower quadrant.
She later sought medical treatment at another hospital, where imaging revealed the presence of a retained surgical sponge in her abdomen. This discovery led to an additional surgery to remove the sponge and treat the complications arising from it. The retained sponge was linked to the earlier spinal surgery performed at the first facility.
Danielle Sebble, joined by her husband Jonathan Sebble, filed suit against the hospital under two causes of action: vicarious liability for the actions of the surgical team and direct negligence in failing to properly oversee the procedures conducted on its premises. The plaintiffs contended that the sponge retention occurred during surgery at the defendant’s facility, and that hospital staff failed to detect and report the error.
In its defense, the hospital sought summary judgment on both claims. Regarding vicarious liability, the hospital emphasized that the surgeon was not its employee but an independent contractor, and thus his conduct could not be imputed to the hospital. For the direct negligence claim, the hospital argued that the plaintiffs had not submitted expert testimony establishing a breach of the standard of care.
The trial court granted summary judgment on both grounds. It found that there was no legal basis to hold the hospital vicariously liable for the surgeon’s conduct, and that the plaintiffs had not met the evidentiary burden required to support a direct negligence claim under Florida law.
The Sebbles appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing their claims. On the issue of vicarious liability, they maintained that despite the surgeon's independent contractor status, he was cloaked in the apparent authority of the hospital due to the manner in which his services were presented to the patient. They cited that Danielle Sebble believed the surgeon was acting on behalf of the hospital and had no reason to think otherwise.
Regarding their direct negligence claim, the Sebbles contended that expert testimony was not necessary under Florida's res ipsa loquitur doctrine, which allows a jury to infer negligence when an injury is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence and is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant. They argued that a retained surgical sponge fell squarely within this doctrine.
The appeals court reviewed the hospital's summary judgment motion and the supporting and opposing evidence. It focused on two issues: whether there was a genuine dispute of material fact concerning the hospital’s potential vicarious liability and whether expert testimony was required to proceed with the direct negligence claim.
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling on vicarious liability. It found that under Florida law, hospitals can be held responsible for the actions of independent contractors if those contractors appear to act on the hospital's behalf and the patient accepts their services without knowledge of the independent status. The court emphasized that Danielle Sebble’s belief about the surgeon’s affiliation and the hospital’s conduct in presenting him as part of the surgical team created a factual issue that precluded summary judgment.
However, the court upheld the dismissal of the direct negligence claim. It explained that even under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, some expert testimony was still required to link the hospital’s conduct to the injury. The Sebbles had not submitted such evidence, which was fatal to this aspect of the case.
Ultimately, the appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings on the vicarious liability claim, allowing Danielle and Jonathan Sebble to pursue the theory that the hospital could be held liable for the conduct of the surgeon based on apparent agency. The court’s ruling left intact the summary judgment on the direct negligence count.
This decision reinforced the legal standards applicable in medical malpractice cases involving retained surgical items, particularly concerning when a hospital may be liable for the conduct of non-employee physicians. The case illustrated how patient perceptions and hospital representations can affect liability under the doctrine of apparent agency.
If you or a loved one has been affected by a medical mistake, our team at Whitcomb Selinsky, PC can help you explore your legal options regarding diagnosis errors, surgical complications, and provider negligence.