When medical care goes wrong, identifying who to sue isn't always obvious. The doctor who made the mistake? The hospital where it happened? The medical group that employed the doctor? The answer affects everything from who pays any judgment to how the case is litigated, and getting it wrong can leave valid claims unrecoverable.
The Individual Physician
Physicians can be held personally liable for their own negligence. When a doctor's care falls below the standard and causes injury, the doctor is directly responsible. This seems straightforward—the person who made the mistake should answer for it.
The practical complication is collectability. Individual physicians may have limited malpractice insurance coverage, and their personal assets may be protected by state laws or structured to avoid judgment collection. A verdict against a doctor who has minimal insurance and no attachable assets may be worth little in practical terms.
That said, physicians typically carry malpractice insurance precisely to cover claims against them. Policy limits vary—$1 million per occurrence is common, with higher limits available—but insurance usually provides a source of recovery that makes individual physician claims worthwhile when negligence is clear.
The Hospital
Hospitals can be liable for malpractice under several theories. Direct liability arises when the hospital itself is negligent—inadequate staffing, defective equipment, dangerous policies, failures of supervision. These institutional failures make the hospital responsible regardless of whether any individual physician was also negligent.
Vicarious liability makes hospitals responsible for the negligence of their employees. If a negligent physician is a hospital employee, the hospital is liable for that negligence through the doctrine of respondeat superior. The hospital is liable not because it did anything wrong itself, but because it employed the person who did.
Here's where it gets complicated: many physicians practicing in hospitals aren't hospital employees. They're independent contractors with privileges to practice at the facility but no employment relationship with it. Traditionally, hospitals weren't vicariously liable for independent contractor negligence.
The Apparent Agency Theory
Many states have modified the independent contractor rule through "apparent agency" or "ostensible agency" doctrines. These theories hold hospitals liable when patients reasonably believe physicians are hospital employees, regardless of actual employment status.
From a patient's perspective, the distinction between employees and independent contractors is invisible. You go to the hospital's emergency department, and a doctor treats you. You don't know—and aren't told—that the ER physician is actually employed by a separate staffing company. You reasonably assume the hospital stands behind the care provided in its facility.
Apparent agency theories honor this reasonable expectation. If the hospital holds out the physician as its agent, creates the appearance of an employment relationship, and the patient relies on that appearance, the hospital may be liable for the physician's negligence even absent actual employment.
Medical Groups and Practice Organizations
Physicians increasingly practice through group structures—professional corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships. When a physician employed by a medical group commits malpractice, the group may be vicariously liable for that negligence.
These entities sometimes have deeper pockets than individual physicians, with group malpractice coverage supplementing individual policies. Identifying and naming the appropriate entity defendants requires understanding the organizational structures through which the negligent physician practices.
Strategic Considerations
Multiple defendants can benefit plaintiffs by providing multiple sources of recovery. If individual physician coverage is limited, hospital liability may provide additional compensation. If the hospital has immunity or caps that limit recovery, individual physician claims may supplement hospital claims.
Multiple defendants also create litigation dynamics that may favor settlement. Defendants with different interests may point fingers at each other, and the prospect of being blamed by co-defendants creates incentive to resolve claims. Settlement negotiations with multiple parties can produce better outcomes than cases against single defendants.
That said, naming defendants without factual basis for claims against them can backfire. Courts may sanction plaintiffs for frivolous claims. Juries may view scattershot naming of defendants as evidence of weak cases. Defense counsel will exploit any appearance of overreaching. Claims should be supported by genuine factual and legal basis.
Determining Proper Defendants
Identifying appropriate defendants requires investigation. What is the physician's relationship with the hospital—employee or independent contractor? Does apparent agency apply under state law? What corporate entities were involved in the care? Who carried malpractice insurance covering the treatment?
These questions may not have obvious answers from medical records alone. Employment relationships, corporate structures, and insurance arrangements require investigation beyond the clinical documentation. Experienced malpractice attorneys know how to investigate these issues and ensure all appropriate defendants are named.