-
145 F.3d 164 Fourth Circuit May 12, 1998 No. 97-2392
Johnson also raises state law negligence claims alleging that the doctors negligently failed to diagnose and treat his pituitary tumor.
At most, Johnson’s case demonstrates that the doctors were negligent in missing the diagnosis. A missed diagnosis, however, does not automatically translate into deliberate indifference.
See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 , 97 S.Ct. at 292 (commenting that physician negligence “in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical - mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment”).
-
896 F.2d 848 Fourth Circuit February 20, 1990 Nos. 89-2635, 89-2637
Simpson limit his testimony to the negligence of the treating physicians and it was error for the trial court to infer such a limitation. See Ditkof v.
Failure to provide the level of care that a treating physician himself believes is necessary could be found conduct which “surpass[es] negligence and constitute^] deliberate indifference." Ancata v.
The affidavit stated that, in Simpson’s opinion, each of the physicians acted with gross negligence.
-
368 F.2d 626 Fourth Circuit October 27, 1966 No. 10432_1
The plaintiff, administrator of her estate, alleges that death was due to the negligence of the doctor on duty at the dispensary of the United States Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Virginia, in diagnosing and treating her illness
The District Court, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the doctor was negligent, or that his eoncededly erroneous diagnosis and treatment was the proximate cause of her death, dismissed the complaint.
Only if a patient is adequately examined, is there no liability for an erroneous diagnosis. 1 Our conclusion that the physician was negligent in his diagnosis and treatment of the patient is not inconsistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52
-
554 F.2d 1285 Fourth Circuit May 19, 1977 No. 76-2198
Even if the doctor were negligent in examining Wester and in making an incorrect diagnosis, his failure to exercise sound professional judgment would not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
-
30 F.2d 50 Fourth Circuit January 14, 1929 No. 2786
The allegation is that the physician was guilty of negligence in examining the injured limb, diagnosing the injury and prescribing treatment therefor, and that this negligence resulted in so aggravating the condition of the injured
Damage is claimed not on account of the original injury, but solely on account of the negligence of the physician. We think that the demurrer was properly sustained.
And we think, also, that defendant is not liable under the statute for the negligence of the physician, for the reason that the physician is not an “officer, agent or employee,” for whose negligence the company is made liable.
-
585 F. Supp. 1328 W.D. Virginia May 21, 1984 No. 83-0120-H
the plaintiffs injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of his treating physicians.
Finally, it is plain that the plaintiff’s allegations of negligence encompass not only the treating physicians, but the entire “medical staff”.
The Hospital’s liability for the negligence of such non-physician personnel would presumably flow from principles of respondeat superior, and not from the doctrine of apparent authority.
-
932 F.2d 301 Fourth Circuit May 6, 1991 No. 90-2628
Petzak’s executrix, commenced a wrongful death action against *303 the government under the FTCA on January 7, 1988, alleging that the negligence of government doctors in failing timely to diagnose her breast cancer proximately
Petzak terminated on February 28, 1984, when she last saw him, his treatment should be considered “continuous” with that of other government doctors at WRAMC who negligently had failed to diagnose her cancer during earlier professional
Equally unavailing are the assertions of later acts of negligence by government doctors other than Bomar — for two reasons.
-
449 F. Supp. 928 M.D. North Carolina April 24, 1978 No. C-74-262-D
Subsequent to the employee’s injury, the defendant caused the employee to be treated by-one of its own doctors whose negligence allegedly caused the employee’s death.
In this action, the plaintiff alleged that the physician was negligent in treating his work related injury resulting in additional damage to him.
The doctor denied that he was negligent in his treatment of the plaintiff and also set forth several other defenses to the plaintiff’s claim.
-
996 F.2d 651 Fourth Circuit June 9, 1993 No. 92-1798
“[T]he physician *654 [must] continuef ] to treat the patient for the particular disease or condition created by the original act of negligence.” Id.
Here, the North Carolina court makes a distinction between the physician who prescribes a negligent course of treatment and then never rectifies the situation by adjusting treatment and the physician who never embarks on a necessary
When a physician fails to treat in the first instance, the negligence has occurred and does not continue in the same sense as when the physician persists in a negligent act of treating.
-
580 F.2d 713 Fourth Circuit August 3, 1978 No. 77-2055
The deposition testimony reveals the physicians’ living quarters were in the same building as the hospital but were segregated from all working areas of the hospital.
In the case before us, giving plaintiff the benefit of every doubt, we can find no factual basis upon which a jury could reasonably find his employer negligent under FELA.
First, under a “direct” negligence theory, his employer could not be found negligent for hiring the physician who allegedly shot plaintiff, because plaintiff admitted he was not known as an emotional person.
-
909 F. Supp. 304 D. Maryland August 21, 1995 Nos. MJG-93-1097, MJG-93-3943
Chaghervand alleged that CareFirst was both directly liable for its own negligence, and vicariously liable for the negligence of the individually named physicians.
Preemption Of Direct Liability Claims In Chaghervand’s original Complaint, she alleges that CareFirst is directly liable for its own negligence, and vicariously liable for the negligence of the individually named physicians.
doctor or facility as its employee....
-
551 F.3d 316 Fourth Circuit January 5, 2009 No. 07-2127
The events giving rise to this case involve the negligence of doctors at the Balboa Naval Medical Center in San Diego, California, in 1997, while Mrs. Cibula was pregnant with J.C.
was taking several medications during her pregnancy, and her doctors failed to monitor the development of the fetus properly, even after she complained repeatedly of cramping and reduced fetal movement that should have alerted the doctors
The doctors’ negligence resulted in oxygen deprivation to the fetus. Mrs.
-
383 F. Supp. 542 W.D. Virginia September 11, 1974 No. 74-C-57-H
Even if institutional physicians are negligent or mistaken in their diagnosis, such error does not raise a constitutional issue in the absence of abuse, mistreatment, or denial of medical attention. Bishop v.
The law is clear on the issues raised by petitioner and mere negligence, without more, by prison guards and physicians does not support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .
Since petitioner has only alleged facts that show possible negligence on the part of the prison guards and physicians, the complaint does not state a claim of constitutional dimension and the court grants respondent’s motion for summary
-
48 F.3d 1218 Fourth Circuit March 3, 1995 No. 94-1452Not cited
his medication on ten separate days in the month preceding his death, rather than any misconduct on the part of prison officials, who had already taken steps to encourage Jenkins to take his medication. 4 At worst, the prison doctors
were negligent in not raising Jenkins' dosages.
Gamble, "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."
-
93 F. Supp. 567 D. Maryland October 20, 1950 No. 4951
But it is not an absolutely universal rule in negligence law that an employer is always free from liability by the negligence of a doctor rendering free medical service in such situations.
More importantly a considerable number of federal judicial decisions under the Act have held expressly or impliedly that the United States may be liable for the negligence of a medical doctor employed by the United States for professional
I think, be clearly liable to a patient admitted for treatment if an injury were caused by negligence of the attending physician, surgeon or other employed attendants in the course of their employment. Knox v.
-
888 F. Supp. 760 S.D. West Virginia June 2, 1995 No. 3:94-0507
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving negligence and lack of skill on the part of the physician proximately caused the injuries suffered. Hicks v.
Corbin, supra (“Failure on the part of the physician to effect a cure does not alone establish or raise a presumption of want of skill or negligence on his part.”).
The Court need not resolve that issue, however, because there is insufficient evidence to find any act or omission of the government doctors, even if amounting to negligence, proximately caused Mi*. Bellomy’s injuries.
-
404 F. App'x 789 Fourth Circuit December 14, 2010 No. 09-2141Cited by 9 Unpublished
They claimed that doctors’ negligent failure to properly treat Mark McEwen with anticoagulant medication on November 13 caused his stroke on November 15.
-
714 F. Supp. 154 M.D. North Carolina July 15, 1988 Nos. Civ. C-85-932-G, C-85-995-G
Plaintiffs Jessica and her parents allege that as a result of the doctors’ alleged negligence, and the allegedly negligent failure of Caswell Family Medical Center to supervise the doctors and to implement a quality assurance program
The Plaintiffs assert that CFMC was negligent in failing to supervise the doctors and in not establishing a quality assurance program which would have implemented formal record keeping and review procedures.
Defendants have produced deposition testimony by other physicians questioning the ability of anyone to draw a conclusion linking the doctors’ alleged negligence to the end result, but this merely raises a genuine issue if Dr.
-
34 F. Supp. 2d 334 E.D. Virginia January 22, 1999 No. Civ.A. 98-1479-A
Count I alleges that the doctors were negligent in their care and treatment of Ms. Eight. Counts II and III are brought against Kaiser and the Medical Group, respectively!
However, these counts also contend that Kaiser and the Medical Group were directly negligent for establishing the improper policies and procedures and for failing to properly train physicians.
Defendants argue that the tortious interference, fraud, and negligence (in respect to the physician financial incentive program) claims are completely preempted.
-
S.D. West Virginia December 12, 2017 No. 2:12-cv-01564Not cited
Analysis The plaintiffs argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the defendants’ affirmative defenses related to contributory negligence, comparative fault, and/or comparative negligence of Ms.
Ethicon conceeds that the affirmative defenses listed in ¶ 42 and ¶ 51 of their Master Answer, to the extent they are based on the purported negligence of Ms. Childress’s treating physicians, are inapplicable in this case.
, comparative fault, and/or comparative negligence of Ms.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.