-
515 F. Supp. 2d 1278 S.D. Florida August 6, 2007 No. 06-22862CIV
With respect to Count III, Royal Caribbean argues that it is not a medical care provider and thus cannot be held liable for the negligence of its ship’s doctors.
If the doctor is negligent in treating a passenger, however, that negligence will not be imputed to the carrier.” Barbetta, 848 F.2d at 1369 .
Furthermore, no cause of action exists to the extent that Hesterly alleges that “[t]he errors in judgement and/or negligence in treatment of a ship’s surgeon, ship’s doctor, or ship’s physician are imputed to the shipowner .... ” (
-
932 F.2d 900 Eleventh Circuit May 31, 1991 No. 90-3589
Therefore, the issue here is whether a private employer would be liable under Florida law for the physicians’ alleged negligence.
Consequently, under Florida law, the government would ordinarily be liable if the physicians were negligent.
This does not preclude a finding that the hospital is also liable for the physicians’ actions if they were indeed negligent.
-
466 F. Supp. 2d 1271 S.D. Florida December 20, 2006 No. 06-CIV-21758
In rendering its decision as to the carrier’s liability, the Barbetta court did not even reach the question of whether the ship’s physician had been negligent.
The court held that even assuming negligence on the part of the physician could be established, that negligence could not be imputed to the carrier. Id. (NCL’s Motion to Dismiss, 3).
If the carrier breaches its duty, it is responsible for its own negligence. If the doctor is negligent in treating a passenger, however, that negligence will not be imputed to the carrier. Barbetta, 848 F.2d at 1369 .
-
843 F. Supp. 2d 1254 S.D. Florida October 12, 2011 No. 11-21460-CIV
Admiralty Jurisdiction Plaintiff advances three separate DOHSA claims — Negligence (Count I). Negligent Selection of Doctors (Count II) and Negligence — Apparent Agency (Count III).
DOHSA Claims As already noted, Plaintiffs DOHSA claims encompass three different theories of negligence: negligent selection and retention of shipboard doctor(s), negligence based on apparent agency and a catch-all negligence claim
Plaintiff fails to provide any factual information concerning the doctor that Celebrity negligently selected-neither naming the doctor nor describing in any way the doctor’s training and education.
-
526 F. Supp. 2d 1324 S.D. Florida December 7, 2007 No. 07-22429-CIV
If the doctor is negligent in treating a passenger, however, that negligence will not be imputed to the carrier”).
In short, since the carrier does not control the doctor or medical staff, they are not vicariously liable for their negligent acts.
The maritime jurisprudence does seem to indicate that the carrier can be, however, liable for negligently hiring either the doctor and/or the medical staff. See Id. 2 .
-
525 F. Supp. 843 N.D. Georgia November 5, 1981 Nos. C80-161R, C80-162R
A hospital is not liable for the negligence of a physician employed by it where the negligence relates to a matter of professional judgment on the part of the physician when the hospital does not exercise and has no right to exercise
Nickolson alleged that a physician in the emergency room was negligent in both the diagnosis and treatment of him. The hospital moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the doctor was an independent contractor.
Doctors Hospital, 141 Ga.App. 649 , 234 S.E.2d 116 (1977). In Hodges , the allegedly negligent conduct was perpetrated by an emergency room physician. The court considered Pogue and its ancestor, Clary, supra.
-
168 F.3d 1252 Eleventh Circuit March 2, 1999 No. 98-2024
These injuries resulted from negligence of the Department’s agents. 2 The claim listed thirteen doctors who had treated Burchfield.
] of corticosteroid therapy” 3 and that his doctors were negligent in failing to initially diagnose osteoporosis, to monitor him for the condition during his treatment, and to administer a bone strengthening regimen. 4 At the
It found that Burchfield’s administrative claim had alleged only that the VA’s doctors were negligent in prescribing Predni-sone, while at trial Burchfield had raised a “significant[ly] different claim!
-
307 F. Supp. 2d 1372 S.D. Florida March 12, 2004 No. 03-21925-CIV
S/S Bermuda Star, 3 a cruise ship cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the ship’s doctor.
DISCUSSION *1374 Under the majority rule 5 of Barbetta, if a cruise line’s doctor is negligent in treating a passenger, the cruise line cannot be held vicariously liable for the doctor’s negligence. 848 F.2d 1364, 1369
Additionally, the Court noted that “the cruise line is already held vicariously liable for the negligence of the same ship’s doctor in the treatment of hundreds of people — the crew.” Id. at 7.
-
871 F.2d 969 Eleventh Circuit April 27, 1989 No. 87-6097Cited by 24 Dissent · Hatchett
of the Act makes a suit against the United States the exclusive remedy for such malpractice: The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of Title 28 for damages for personal injury ... caused by the negligent
Under section 1089(a), a cause of action exists for claims of personal injury resulting from a military physician’s negligence in the scope of such physician’s duties. Because Dr.
Soballe is an armed forces physician whose alleged negligence occurred in the performance of his duties as a military physician, a section 1089(a) cause of action exists; and therefore, the district court properly refused to remand
-
478 F. App'x 613 Eleventh Circuit June 5, 2012 No. 11-11588Cited by 3 Unpublished
NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS Lynch argues that the district court erred when it granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss because, 1) Lynch should not be required to submit an affidavit from a doctor when asserting a claim of negligence, 3
Because Lynch has not put forth non-conclusory statements that the doctors were professionally negligent, 4 the district court correctly dismissed Lynch’s Complaint against the doctors for negligence in both their official and
Before the district court, Lynch argued that his claim was not for professional negligence, but merely negligence. The district court treated Lynch's claims against the doctors as claims for professional negligence.
-
941 F.3d 487 Eleventh Circuit October 17, 2019 No. 18-11815
In addition, Panamanian law recognizes a seafarer’s action for the negligence of her employer or the shipowner, such as a claim for Carnival’s negligent hiring of the shore-side physicians.
a physician.
Moreover, Cvoro does not claim that Carnival was negligent in hiring the Serbian doctors who continued to treat her carpal tunnel syndrome and, in fact, admits that Carnival was not negligent in hiring the specific Serbian doctor
-
404 F. Supp. 2d 1367 S.D. Florida November 30, 2005 No. 05-20128 CV
negligence should be imputed to the cruise line.”
Huntley, 307 F.Supp.2d at 1372 (denying Carnival’s motion to dismiss claim of vicarious liability where ship’s doctor was negligent in treating a passenger for injuries sustained during a “slip and fall”).
No. 28, Reply to Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss). 3 In Warren , a passenger sought damages against a cruise line for the negligent care and treatment received by the ship’s doctor after suffering a heart attack. Id.
-
726 F. Supp. 1285 S.D. Florida May 11, 1989 No. 88-6794-CIV
The defendants accompany these affidavits with a memorandum, which sets forth the long established rule in admiralty that a ship owner cannot be responsible for the negligence of its ship doctor. See Barbetta v.
The reasoning behind the rule prohibiting the negligence of a ship doctor from being imputed to a ship owner is sound. 1 Two justifications exist for the rule.
If the carrier breaches its duty, it is responsible for its own negligence. Id. In contesting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs never raise the issue of Doctor Lungarotto’s competence.
-
175 F. App'x 300 Eleventh Circuit April 10, 2006 Nos. 05-12372; D.C. Docket 04-01216-CV-B-SCited by 5 Unpublished
Specifically, the government stated that, on April 30, 2001, Slater had filed a claim with the VA alleging that he had developed diabetes based on the negligent prescription of drugs by VA doctors in 2000.
Barrett, Regional Counsel for the Department of Veterans Affairs covering Alabama, who stated that, on April 30, 2001, Slater filed a claim alleging that he had developed diabetes as the result of VA doctors negligently prescribing
Also included was a June 11, 2001, claim alleging that VA doctors negligently failed to take him off of lithium carbonate between February 1988 and September 1997, causing hypothyroidism.
-
795 F. Supp. 1118 N.D. Georgia April 5, 1990 No. 1:88-CV-2951-JOF
*1123 The negligence alleged in this action is not that the doctor caused the defects in the child, but rather that the negligence deprived the parents of information necessary to make a decision whether or not to continue the
The cause of action presented in the instant case is different than in Graves , because here the negligent physician did not bring about the child’s existence through her negligence.
It is based on the premise that the doctor owes a duty to the child, and absent negligence, would prevent the child from being born.
-
484 F. Supp. 986 N.D. Alabama December 14, 1979 No. 78-X-0323-S
The Court is of the opinion and so finds that plaintiff’s disobedience to orders in respect to movement, which operated upon the consequences of the prior negligence of the physicians, contributed to the condition which suddenly appeared
Physicians and Surgeons § 51, at 974, note 10 and supplement, that: *991 “Where liability for negligence or malpractice has been incurred by a physician, subsequent negligence of the patient, which aggravates the injury primarily
” *992 The Court concludes and finds as follows: (1) That the physicians attending the plaintiff on the night of May 21, 1977, 1 were guilty of negligence in the particulars hereinabove indicated, that such negligence proximately
-
184 F. App'x 904 Eleventh Circuit June 19, 2006 No. 05-15623Cited by 8 Unpublished
Ravi Gupta and other unknown doctors and nurses at LRMC and described their negligence, as follows: The Claimant, Mr.
The Leesburg Medical Doctors were negligent in their treatment and lack of treatment to claiment [sic].
of the doctors and nurses at LRMC, a private hospital, because they were independent contractors.
-
66 F. Supp. 2d 1247 N.D. Florida October 13, 1999 No. 4:98CV161-RH
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE Ms.
Pemberton also asserts that the physicians were negligent in rendering their opinions concerning the risks of vaginal birth and that the hospital was negligent in admitting these physicians to its medical staff and relying on their
The physicians were not negligent. The hospital was not negligent.
-
203 F. Supp. 2d 1367 S.D. Florida May 21, 2002 No. 99-1813-CIV
If the carrier breaches its duty, it is responsible for its own negligence. If the doctor is negligent in treating a passenger, however, that negligence will not be imputed to the carrier. Id.
Home Lines, Inc., *1375 536 F.Supp. 100, 103 (E.D.Pa.1982) (“The fact that the physician errs in his treatment does not prove that he was incompetent or that the company was negligent in appointing him.”)
Feb. 3, 1995) (stating that ship owner cannot be responsible for negligence of ship doctor).
-
720 F.2d 1548 Eleventh Circuit December 15, 1983 No. 82-8580
They claimed that the defendant-appellee, a medical doctor, negligently performed a la-paroscopic tubal ligation on Mrs. Robinson in 1975.
Once the physician complies with this provision, Georgia law insulates the physician against all civil liability except a negligence action.
The Robinsons filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging negligence by the doctor. In addition to the issue of informed consent, the Robinsons allege that Mrs.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.