Independent contractor physicians and Georgia medical malpractice

If a physician is an independent contractor, a Georgia hospital can escape liability for that physician’s negligence by meeting a specific notice statute. O.C.G.A. § 51-2-5.1(b) says no complying hospital “shall be liable in a tort action for the acts or omissions of a health care professional unless there exists an actual agency or employment relationship”. A patient who assumes the hospital answers for everyone in the building may be wrong. The contract and the posted sign decide it, and the patient’s reading of the sign does not.

Two ways a hospital can meet the statute

Route	What it requires	Statute
Posted notice	Conspicuous, in the lobby or a public area, print at least one inch high, with language substantially similar to the statute's	§ 51-2-5.1(c)
Signed acknowledgment	Patient or personal representative signs similar language	§ 51-2-5.1(d)

Subsection (e) closes the obvious argument: the notice is sufficient “even if the patient or the patient’s personal representative did not see or read such notice for any reason, including but not limited to medical condition or language proficiency”. The theory that the sign was not seen, or that the patient was unconscious, does not help under the statute’s text.

Hospital advertising doesn’t settle the matter through “apparent agency”. For a hospital that has met this notice statute, the test is actual agency or employment. A hospital that has not met it is outside the protection of subsection (b), and other arguments remain open.

How “actual agency or employment” is decided

Subsection (f) looks first to the contract between the professional and the hospital. If there is none, or if it is unclear, the professional counts as an employee or agent only where the hospital has a right of control over the time, manner, or method of the services. Subsection (g) gives factors for and against.

Some things are expressly not evidence of control. Among them are the hospital’s requirement that the professional treat all patients, or that a group staff a department continuously. Others count, such as the parties’ belief that they were creating an agency or employment relationship and receipt of substantially all employee benefits. The list is long, so read it in the statute itself.

The contract may not be available until discovery. That is a reason to name the hospital and the professional’s group when the deadline approaches, if there is a good-faith basis, and to have counsel consider the timing of that decision.

What remains after the statute

The statute concerns liability “for the acts or omissions of a health care professional”. It does not cover everything.

• The professional is still liable. A contractor can be sued directly.
• The professional’s employer can be liable. If a group employs the doctor, O.C.G.A. § 51-2-2 and ordinary agency rules apply to the group.
• The hospital’s own employees are different. A nurse who is a hospital employee does not fall under this protection for that nurse’s acts.
• Claims about the hospital’s own conduct are not obviously within the words of subsection (b). See vicarious liability and hospital negligence.

Fault can then be divided among all of them under § 51-12-33, including a non-party. So a hospital that is dismissed may still appear on the verdict form in some circumstances, as the non-party fault article explains.

Emergency care adds a second barrier

Contractor questions can come up in emergency departments, radiology, and anesthesia. In an emergency department, § 51-1-29.5(c) also applies, with clear and convincing evidence of gross negligence required for emergency medical care. So a person injured in an emergency room may face both barriers, and the emergency room malpractice article explains the second one.

Evidence to gather

• a photograph of any lobby notice, along with the date, because a later photo may not show what was posted at the time;
• the admission paperwork, including any signed acknowledgment;
• billing statements, which can show separate professional billing;
• the physician’s group name on the chart and on letterhead; and
• later, the contract itself.

Who decides

The statute calls for the contract to be read first, and it gives the court the factors if the contract is unclear. A person’s belief about who the doctor worked for is not one of those factors. When choosing whom to sue, suing doctors versus hospitals lays out the practical comparison.

Sources

• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 51-1-29.5, 51-2-2, 51-2-5.1, 51-12-33
• Legislative Counsel, Summary of General Statutes Enacted, 2026: House Bill 185, amending § 51-2-5.1(a)(1)

This page was last reviewed in November 2026 for general information. Laws and court decisions can change after that date. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.