The hospital ultimately moved for summary judgment, which the trial court
granted, finding that: (1) the technologist did not act within the scope of her duties, as is necessary for the hospital to be vicariously liable for the technologist's conduct; (2) the plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support a finding of intentional infliction of
emotional distress; and (3) none of the plaintiffs suffered actual
damages as a result of the technologist's conduct.