01-1894 Hojnacki v. Klein-Acosta, et al.

Listen to this article

“Consideration of the most important factor, however, confirms that she was not an employee. The DOC did not control the performance of Dr. Hojnacki’s duties. The contract between Addus and the DOC provided that Addus, not the DOC, ‘shall supervise all persons employed by it during the performance of their work within said institution, and they shall be employees of the Contractor and not employees of the Department of Corrections.’ R.21, Ex.B, at para. 2.0(E). Under the heading ‘Professional Ethics,’ the manual setting out the policies and procedures of the health care unit at Dwight provided that ‘[a]ll medical, psychiatric and dental matters involving clinical judgment are the sole province of the physician or dentist responsible for the care of inmates at Dwight Correctional Center . . . .’ R.29, Ex.D, at 7. Dr. Hojnacki suggests that the manual’s statement of professional ethics is mere surplusage because it simply reiterates the ethical standard that all doctors adopt with the Hippocratic Oath, and no doctor would allow a lay person to overrule her clinical judgment. Even so, the statement reflects a policy of deference in all ‘matters involving clinical judgment.’ As medical director, Dr. Hojnacki was to ‘plan, implement, direct and control all clinical aspects of the health care program.’ R.23, Ex.17, para. 4.8(o). The contract between Addus and the DOC also specified that ‘[i]n addition to administrative responsibilities, the on- site Medical Director shall also provide primary health care services on a routine basis.’ Id. Implementing ‘all clinical aspects of the health care program’ and providing ‘primary health care services’ would undoubtedly involve ‘clinical judgment’ and would therefore be the ‘sole province’ of Dr. Hojnacki.

“For an employer-employee relationship to exist, however, the employer must have ‘the right to control and direct the work of an individual, not only as to the result to be achieved, but also as to the details by which that result is achieved . . . .’ Alexander, 101 F.3d at 493. The procedural requirements that Dr. Hojnacki has put forward as examples of the DOC’s control over her merely specify her duties as medical director; they do not control the manner in which she is to perform those duties.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kennelly, J., Ripple, J.