-
774 F. Supp. 91 D. Connecticut September 16, 1991 No. Civ. H-88-605 (PCD)
In addition, plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its claim that the hospital is liable because the physicians were negligent in performing a non-delegable duty of the hospital.
Plaintiff seeks to hold the hospital liable, not for its own negligence, but rather, for the alleged negligence of the doctors who treated him at the hospital, on the theory of respondeat superior.
should be held liable for the doctors’ negligence on the theory of apparent agency.
-
895 F.2d 107 Second Circuit February 2, 1990 Nos. 695, Docket 89-7912
Appellant claimed principally that appellees were negligent in allowing the floor of the ship’s lounge to become wet and slippery, and that the malpractice of the ship’s doctor, Dr. Plesa, aggravated her injuries.
Appellant contends on appeal, among other things, that we should overturn the rule that the negligence of a shipboard doctor in treating passengers is not to be imputed to the ship’s owner or operator.
Our research confirms that this court has never explicitly adopted the rule that a ship’s owner or operator cannot be held vicariously liable to a passenger for the negligence of a shipboard doctor, although lower courts in this circuit
-
792 F.2d 305 Second Circuit June 9, 1986 Nos. 448, Docket 85-7682Cited by 27 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Lumbard
If a physician is fraudulently induced to prescribe a test for a patient, and the patient becomes seriously ill, it is almost axiomatic that the physician will be involved in litigation with the patient.
Of course, the patient charges the physician with negligence, or the physician is so charged when he is impleaded.
Where patients believe *311 that they have been negligently injured, malpractice actions against physicians are now as certain as death and taxes.
-
362 F. Supp. 83 S.D. New York May 23, 1973 No. 71 Civ. 3408
Sloan has essentially charged the State’s physicians with negligent treatment of his physical condition. In Sloan’s own words, “[t]he Question arises . that Mr. John L. Zelker . . . Head Doctor Jakien and Asst.
Head Doctor Moutbello [sic] [were] negligent in the performance of their duties . . . . ” Complaint j[ 8.
Sowers, 347 F.Supp. 1055 (M.D.La.1972), a prisoner, whose arm had been stabbed in a fracas with another inmate, charged that prison doctors were negligent in refusing to bring in a specialist to treat his arm.
-
451 F.2d 670 Second Circuit November 12, 1971 No. 35079
In view of the disposition of the case on this appeal, however, it is unnecessary to delineate these negligence claims more fully, except for the claim of negligent care by the doctors, discussed infra. 4 The plaintiff's chief
One is in improperly providing for a seaman's care, including the negligent selection of a doctor; the other is in the negligence of the doctor himself, see De Zon, supra 318 U.S. at 664-665 , 63 S.Ct. 814 ; Central Gulf Steamship
The shipowner could then be liable, even though the doctor selected was not personally negligent in his treatment.
-
122 F. Supp. 899 S.D. New York July 21, 1954
The jury, in answer to interrogatories submitted to them, found that the eye injury of which plaintiff complains was caused by the negligence of the doctor. The defendant cites Metzger v. Western Maryland Ry.
American President Lines, 318 U.S. 660 , 63 S.Ct. 814 , 87 L.Ed. 1065 , holding a shipowner liable for damages for harm suffered as a result of the negligence of a ship’s doctor, is persuasive.
I am persuaded that the doctor in this case was without a doubt an employee for whose negligence the defendant was responsible, and accordingly, the motion for a new trial in the second cause of action will be denied.
-
509 F.2d 109 Second Circuit January 20, 1975 Nos. 149, Docket 74-1507
The first amended complaint does clearly allege at least an action based upon diversity jurisdiction against one or more of the individual doctors for negligence, malpractice and misrepresentation and alleges an action against the
The second amended complaint, even more clearly than the first, alleges an action against the United States for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and an action against one or more of the individual doctors for negligence
Perhaps the claim of misrepresentation against the doctors alleges an intentional tort that could not form the basis of a suit against the United States under the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h), but it is more likely pleaded to vitiate
-
4 F.3d 123 Second Circuit August 26, 1993 Nos. 1791, Docket 93-7116
At trial, Connors attempted to show that the physicians performing the surgery had negligently employed an O’Connor-O’Sulli-van self-retaining retractor during the operation.
Specifically, Connors requested that the jury be charged that it could infer negligence from the fact of her injury, since such an injury would not normally happen but for the physicians’ negligence.
Rather, Connors’ experts opined that there was nothing unusual about Connor’s anatomy, contrary to the defendant-appellant’s suggestion, and that the injury could only have occurred if the doctors had negligently used the retractor
-
296 F. 98 Second Circuit January 7, 1924 No. 142
The testimony and the charge of the court demonstrate that the case was tried on the theory that the defendant physician was negligent and unskillful.
-
719 F. Supp. 1183 S.D. New York August 17, 1989 No. 87 Civ. 3319(IBC)
Negligence of Physician The final issue for our consideration is whether the alleged negligence of Dr. Plesa, the ship’s physician can be imputed to defendants.
The question of whether defendants negligently hired an incompetent doctor is an issue of fact generally decided by the jury. Barbetta, 848 F.2d at 1368 .
Since plaintiff has not even raised the issue of whether defendants negligently employed the ship physician, the issue is not in dispute.
-
916 F. Supp. 300 S.D. New York February 22, 1996 No. 94 Civ. 7687 (LAK)
City of New York, 923 F.2d 22, 24 (2d Cir.1991) (unseaworthiness); Monteleone, 838 F.2d at 65 (negligence). 3 .
The third party defendant also opposes defendants' motion for summary judgment, claiming that the ship's doctor was negligent in treating Mrs.
Lee at the time of the accident, that his negligence contributed to the overall poor result, and that the owners are responsible for that negligence. The ship's doctor, however, is regarded as an independent contractor.
-
784 F. Supp. 2d 231 W.D. New York March 31, 2011 No. 02-CV-6320L
It is well settled that a prisoner’s “complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-107 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (an inmate’s “complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not become a constitutional violation merely because
-
85 F. Supp. 2d 220 S.D. New York August 11, 1999 No. 98 Civ 5756 SAS
Under New York law, a jury would have been given the following instruction: Malpractice is professional negligence and medical malpractice is the negligence of a doctor.
The fact that there was a bad result to the patient, by itself, does not make the doctor liable. The doctor is liable only if he was negligent.
Whether the doctor was negligent is to be decided on the basis of the facts and conditions existing at the time of the claimed negligence.
-
418 F.2d 774 Second Circuit November 12, 1969 No. 32306_1
Hendry claimed that negligent psychiatric examinations by the doctors caused him to lose wages for the period of three and one half months that elapsed during the suspension of his license.
In light of this it appears to us that if Hendry had been negligently examined and reported on by private physicians he could sustain a claim for lost wages under New York law.
An unlicensed physician is liable for malpractice and negligence only if he did not exercise the care and skill that would have been exercised by a qualified licensed practitioner. Brown v.
-
390 F.2d 19 Second Circuit February 21, 1968 Nos. 215, Docket 31733
For a first cause of action, Richard claims that on April 16, 1958, he was discharged from the Hospital “in an ill and physically weakened condition by the action of the defendant, Erich Schaefer, a physician and surgeon employed by
Schaefer's supposed negligence consisted of both the discharge and a failure to advise the University that Richard was unfit to participate in football practice. Liability is imputed to the Hospital because Dr.
Moreover, the New York rule is that an institution is not responsible for the negligence of physicians who are independent contractors exercising their own discretion. Compare Schneider v. New York Tel.
-
720 F. Supp. 45 S.D. New York September 20, 1989 No. 88 Civ. 9029
In addition, plaintiff claims, both the Hospital and the Blood Center negligently failed to take certain measures to prevent the spread of blood-borne diseases.
In Simcuski , the Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action as time-barred, because plaintiff adequately alleged that her physician “was aware of the negligent manner in which he had performed
the surgery and aware, too, that as a result of his negligence plaintiff had suffered a potentially *47 permanent injury,” but, when plaintiff confronted him, the doctor willfully and fraudulently denied the severity of the injury
-
134 F. 159 E.D. New York December 1, 1904
It is not necessary to decide this .question, nor whether the physician was guilty of negligence. Even so, his errors,, mistakes, or negligence are not imputable to the ship.
-
654 F. App'x 502 Second Circuit June 30, 2016 No. 15-1439Cited by 74 Unpublished
Under this standard, “a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the *505 Eighth Amendment.” Hill v.
-
99 F.3d 550 Second Circuit November 8, 1996 No. 465
Id. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 1979 ; see also Hathaway II, 37 F.3d at 66 . 10 With respect to medical malpractice and deliberate indifference, the Supreme Court has further explained that mere allegations of negligent malpractice do
not state a claim of deliberate indifference: 11 Thus, a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment
-
853 F.2d 1078 Second Circuit August 17, 1988 Nos. 954, 1055, Dockets 87-6291, 88-6029
First, during treatment a negligent doctor may conceal important information from a patient. Ashley v. United States, 413 F.2d 490, 493 (9th Cir.1969); Kelly, 554 F.Supp. 1003 .
See Dundon, 559 F.Supp. at 473 (change of physicians and departments). Thus, they argue, plaintiff left the care and treatment of the negligent actor (Psychiatric Service) on May 7, 1976.
That the Psychiatric Service’s negligence required the corrective efforts of specialists in another medical area of the same institution is hardly a reason to refuse to apply the doctrine.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.