MCCLELLAN v. HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The court reversed a demurrer, allowing a medical malpractice suit against an HMO to proceed. Claims included ostensible agency for a physician’s negligence and direct negligence by the HMO in selecting and retaining the physician.
Legal Significance: This case established that an HMO can be held liable for physician malpractice under ostensible agency and for its own negligence in selecting and retaining physicians, applying Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323.
MCCLELLAN v. HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Marilyn McClellan, a subscriber to Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania (HMO PA), selected Dr. Joseph Hempsey as her primary care physician from a list provided by the HMO. Appellants alleged Dr. Hempsey negligently failed to biopsy a mole he removed from Mrs. McClellan, leading to an untimely diagnosis of malignant melanoma and her subsequent death. Appellants sued the HMO, alleging negligence under theories of ostensible agency (vicarious liability for Dr. Hempsey’s actions) and direct corporate negligence (negligent selection and retention of Dr. Hempsey). They also claimed breach of contract and misrepresentation based on the HMO’s assurances about physician competency and specialist referrals. The HMO represented its physicians as carefully screened and qualified. Mrs. McClellan allegedly relied on these representations. The trial court sustained the HMO’s demurrer, dismissing the complaint. Appellants appealed, arguing their complaint stated valid causes of action.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the appellants’ complaint allege sufficient facts to state causes of action against the Health Maintenance Organization for negligence based on theories of ostensible agency and direct liability for negligent selection and retention of a primary care physician?
Yes, the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to support causes of action for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Dui
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the appellants’ complaint allege sufficient facts to state causes of action against the Health Maintenance Organization for negligence based on theories of ostensible agency and direct liability for negligent selection and retention of a primary care physician?
Conclusion
This case significantly affirmed that HMOs can face tort liability for medical Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
Legal Rule
An HMO may be liable for a physician's negligence under the theory Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est la
Legal Analysis
The court, applying the standard for a demurrer, found the appellants' allegations Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An HMO can be held vicariously liable for a physician’s malpractice