In Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1448, the plaintiff went to the emergency room of a local hospital experiencing neck pain. (Id. at p. 1450.) The X-ray technician misread the plaintiff's X-ray and failed to diagnose that she had a broken neck and, as a result, she was discharged. (Id. at p. 1451.) The next morning, the plaintiff woke up paralyzed. (Ibid.) The plaintiff sued the hospital, the emergency room physician, and the radiologist, who was employed by an independent contractor to the hospital. (Ibid.) The trial court granted nonsuit in favor of the hospital at the close of the plaintiff's case based on the conclusion that the radiologist was not the ostensible agent of the hospital. (Ibid.) The appellate court reversed. (Id. at p. 1461.) The Mejia court explained the two Civil Code sections identified above "require proof of three elements: '"First the person dealing with the agent must do so with belief in the agent's authority and this belief must be a reasonable one; second such belief must be generated by some act or neglect of the principal sought to be charged; third and the third person in relying on the agent's apparent authority must not be guilty of negligence."' Of course, at heart, these three elements are the same as the two elements discussed above: (1) conduct by the hospital that would cause a reasonable person to believe there was an agency relationship and (2) reliance on that apparent agency relationship by the plaintiff." (Mejia, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1456-1457.) The Mejia court analyzed the national trend on the concept of hospital liability for physician conduct. The court noted the first element of ostensible agency is generally "satisfied when the hospital 'holds itself out' to the public as a provider of care. In order to prove this element, it is not necessary to show an express representation by the hospital. Instead, a hospital is generally deemed to have held itself out as the provider of care, unless it gave the patient contrary notice. Many courts have even concluded that prior notice may not be sufficient to avoid liability in an emergency room context, where an injured patient in need of immediate medical care cannot be expected to understand or act upon that information." (Mejia, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1453-1454.) On the second issue of reliance, the court stated "reliance, is established when the plaintiff 'looks to' the hospital for services, rather than to an individual physician. However, reliance need not be proven by direct testimony. In fact, many courts presume reliance, absent evidence that the plaintiff knew or should have known the physician was not an agent of the hospital. " (Mejia, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1454.) The court concluded, "As should be apparent to an astute observer, there is really only one relevant factual issue: whether the patient had reason to know that the physician was not an agent of the hospital. As noted above, hospitals are generally deemed to have held themselves out as the provider of services unless they gave the patient contrary notice, and the patient is generally presumed to have looked to the hospital for care unless he or she was treated by his or her personal physician. Thus, unless the patient had some reason to know of the true relationship between the hospital and the physician--i.e., because the hospital gave the patient actual notice or because the patient was treated by his or her personal physician--ostensible agency is readily inferred." (Mejia, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1454-1455.) "When this standard is applied to the case law governing ostensible agency in the hospital context, it appears difficult, if not impossible, for a hospital to ever obtain a nonsuit based on the lack of ostensible agency. Effectively, all a patient needs to show is that he or she sought treatment at the hospital, which is precisely what plaintiff alleged in this case. Unless the evidence conclusively indicates that the patient should have known that the treating physician was not the hospital's agent, such as when the patient is treated by his or her personal physician, the issue of ostensible agency must be left to the trier of fact." (Mejia, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1458.)