was its employee-—giving Dr. Wigfall a badge with the hospital’s name and providing the Bains with forms headed by the hospital’s name—HKH also failed to take any reasonable effort to disabuse the Bains of that notion. Unlike the hospitals in the cases discussed above, where the hospitals took some measure to inform patients that the emérgency-room doctors were hot employees of the hospital, HKH did nothing to indicate that Dr, Wigfall was not its employee. Additionally, courts finding sufficient evidence to support vicarious liability have emphasized the patient's reliance on the hospital, rather than on a particular doctor, to provide medical services, which is often the case in the emergency-room context. See, e.g., Porter v. Sisters of St.. Mary, 756 F.2d 669 (8th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); Barrett v. Samaritan Health Servs., 153 Ariz.
recognizing that generally services that benefit debtor are services that facilitate completion of a case holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed holding evidence of apparent authority insufficient where patient sought services of particular doctor rather than services of hospital generally holding that where hospital used balance billing its lien was unenforceable because the hospital had been paid in full for the services it provided to patient and there was consequently no debt to secure by the existence of the lien holding that a question of fact existed regarding whether the hospital held the doctor out as its agent if the hospital provided the doctor without explicitly informing the patient that the doctor was not its employee