-
848 F.2d 1364 Fifth Circuit August 18, 1988 No. 87-3478
physician.”
issue as to whether defendants negligently hired the doctor?
Barbet-ta’s diabetes somehow proves that Bahama Cruise must have been negligent — apparently, the Barbettas are asserting that it is negligence per se to hire a doctor who cannot diagnose a condition, as the Barbettas characterize
-
989 F.2d 171 Fifth Circuit March 24, 1993 No. 92-8442
action against the doctor had run.
Physician], committed any act of negligence in the care and treatment of Jermaine Broussard."
Even if we were convinced that someone other than that doctor was negligent toward Jermaine, the Broussards cannot prevail in this negligence suit.
-
409 F. Supp. 118 W.D. Texas March 5, 1976 No. SA-75-CA-69
Plaintiffs alleged in their First Amended Original Petition that their last child, Kirk Patrick, was born to them as the result of negligence on the part of Doctor Robert E.
on the part of the physician performing the operation.
When a Pomeroy bilateral tubal ligation is unsuccessful through negligence on the part of the physician in its performance at a time when the patient is not then pregnant, as in the instant case the only foreseeable consequence is
-
701 F. Supp. 2d 886 S.D. Texas March 15, 2010 No. L-09-0135
Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Doctors Hospital acted negligently in using a knee replacement that was the wrong size during Plaintiffs September 17, 2007 surgery. (Id).
This fact tends to show that Plaintiff has not acquired new information regarding Doctors Hospital’s potential negligence in this matter.
Plaintiff implies that she will be injured if Doctors Hospital is not a defendant, and Dr. Holzknecht successfully argues that Doctors Hospital is responsible for the negligence. (See id. at pgs. 2-3).
-
986 F.2d 119 Fifth Circuit April 21, 1993 No. 92-7102
Mississippi law holds a doctor vicariously liable for the negligence of non-employee personnel only when those personnel are performing duties delegated to them by the doctor as his agent.
Mississippi law does not impose vicarious liability on a doctor for the negligent acts that non-employee personnel perform in their purely administrative/ministerial capacities as hospital employees.
The law imposes liability on a physician for the negligence of a nurse only if the nurse committed the negligent acts or omissions pursuant to the direction and control of the physician.
-
158 F.2d 973 Fifth Circuit January 21, 1947 No. 11661
The appellee contends that an employer is not liable for the erroneous diagnosis or negligent treatment of an employee’s ailment by one of its physicians, where the employer was not negligent in selecting the physician and had no knowledge
Such a rule is not absolute in Mississippi, although in some circumstances the master is not liable for the negligence or unskillfulness of a physician employed by him, provided he has exercised due care in selecting the physician.
He obeyed this order, and was injured by the aforesaid negligence of the physician in charge, who represented the appellee and was neither selected nor employed by the appellant.
-
394 F.2d 482 Fifth Circuit April 24, 1968 No. 24702_1
Appellants contend that the physicians treating Mrs.
been known to the hospital <. the doctors that there appears to be no “known method of determining in advance as to the idiosyncrasies of a patient to this drug;” that Compazine is a “widely recognized and accepted drug”; that the doctors
were not negligent in delaying giving an antidote “ * * * until they first determined that the Compazine was really the trouble”.
-
423 F.2d 1160 Fifth Circuit February 17, 1970 No. 26385
[Best judgment] Our jurisprudence does not require a physician to exercise the highest degree of care or skill possible in treating a patient, nor does it impute negligence to the physician who fails to follow that course of the
which you find negligence with regard to a doctor or a professional person is slightly different from the standards of negligence, ordinary negligence, as against an ordinary person.
In other words, when you determine the question of negligence as to a doctor, the doctor is held to that degree of care, skill and knowledge as ordinarily possessed and exercised by similar doctors in the same locality practicing the
-
821 F.2d 295 Fifth Circuit July 13, 1987 No. 87-5532
First, Powers’ action is one that comports with the description set out in subsection (a), that is, it is a suit for damages for personal injury caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a physician in the performance
Schultz, while acting within the scope of his employment as a military physician negligently misdiagnosed the plaintiff’s case, thereby causing the injuries complained of.
Although we did not specifically discuss the interrelation between subsection (a) and (c), Jones’ reasoning is applicable: when a claim against a military physician is made for negligence committed within the scope of his employment
-
Fifth Circuit March 25, 1993 No. 92-8442Not cited Unpublished
Physician], committed any act of negligence in the care and treatment of Jermaine Broussard." The Broussards timely appealed.
action against the doctor had run.
Physician], committed any act of negligence in the care and treatment of Jermaine Broussard."
-
470 F.2d 487 Fifth Circuit December 12, 1972 No. 72-2055
The claim was based on the theory of negligence of the United States Public Health Service in failing to furnish competent doctors and technicians and its failure to give competent treatment to the plaintiff following his injury.
The alleged negligence by the government physicians took place at Savannah.
The release of that agency does not operate to release the United States for the negligence of the Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and its physicians and agents.
-
Fifth Circuit April 12, 1993 No. 92-8442Not cited
Physician, but refused to grant summary judgment on the issue of any other person's alleged negligence.
Physician], committed any act of negligence in the care and treatment of Jermaine Broussard."
Even if we were convinced that someone other than that doctor was negligent toward Jermaine, the Broussards cannot prevail in this negligence suit.
-
722 F.2d 1220 Fifth Circuit January 16, 1984 No. 83-3051
After a protracted sequence of litigation, the jury found that certain physicians at Ochsner were negligent in their diagnosis and treatment of Mr. Hemingway and awarded him $365,000 damages.
Before the case went to the jury, the parties stipulated that the hospital and clinic would be responsible for any negligence of physicians on Dr. Murison’s or Dr. Ochsner’s staffs.
In medical malpractice actions the jury shall be instructed that the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the negligence of the physician or dentist.
-
Fifth Circuit March 30, 2005 No. 04-30368Not cited Unpublished
Plaintiffs, Patterson’s survivors, do not persuade us that the district court legally erred in failing to distinguish between doctor and hospital negligence.
In its memorandum opinion the district court detailed the treatment of Patterson by the treating physicians and the hospital staff, and concluded that “the VA medical staff was not negligent in treating Patterson’s coagulopathy.
We do not believe that the district court erroneously thought that Louisiana law of medical malpractice is limited to physician negligence or that Plaintiffs’ claims in this particular case were so limited. 2 4.
-
630 F.2d 286 Fifth Circuit November 10, 1980 No. 79-2248
His father brought this diversity action against the doctor and the hospital alleging that they were negligent in failing to discover sooner the fractured hip. The district court granted summary judgment for the hospital.
The court evaluated the pleadings and affidavits before it under the established Georgia law concerning the liability of a hospital for the negligence of a doctor on its staff.
Under this theory of recovery, the court came to the conclusion that the doctor was “an independent contractor whose orders the Hospital followed. They were not negligent in so doing.”
-
935 F.2d 734 Fifth Circuit August 29, 1991 No. 90-8195
Eugene and Dora Owen, individually and as next friends of their daughter Alicia *736 Marie Owen, filed this action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act to recover for the negligence of physicians at an army
After a non-jury trial, the district court found that government physicians were negligent and awarded $3,902,400 in damages.
-
560 F.2d 683 Fifth Circuit October 11, 1977 No. 75-2682
Each doctor would lose his option if “proven guilty” of “gross negligence.” The doctors initiated the promised coverage and used the hospital for their Fort Worth patients as well.
Although the Authority now contends that the reasons for that decision included the doctors’ failure to provide 24-hour coverage at the hospital and their gross negligence, the district court found that the decision resulted primarily
The Authority gave the doctors notice of the alleged reasons for the termination, listing their negligence, professional incompetence and failure to be available for reasonably expected medical necessities.
-
519 F.2d 1137 Fifth Circuit September 17, 1975 No. 74-2922
After his release from prison, he filed this suit, alleging that the negligent failure of the treating physicians at F.C.I. to control his diabetes had been a proximate cause of his stroke.
Texas law, therefore, would determine if expert testimony is necessary to establish the negligence of a physician. Rewis v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 369 F.2d 595 ; Watson v.
Texas cases are in agreement that a plaintiff, to recover for injuries suffered from medical negligence, must show, by expert testimony, that the treating physicians breached the standard of care. 2 Hart v.
-
911 F.3d 280 Fifth Circuit December 19, 2018 No. 17-30963
Thus, a shipowner is vicariously liable for the negligence of an on-board physician in its employ. De Zon , 318 U.S. at 668 , 63 S.Ct. 814 .
De Centeno , 798 F.2d at 140 ; see also Sambula , 405 F.2d at 299 (stating standard for vicarious liability for on-shore physician as "whether the ship was negligent in selecting and relying upon [the physician]").
Co. , 176 F.3d 891 , 895-96 (6th Cir. 1999) (noting that "a shipowner is liable for the negligence of an on-shore physician that it hires to treat a crewman," and may be vicariously liable "when the shipowner selects a doctor
-
304 F.2d 234 Fifth Circuit June 14, 1962 No. 19354
Thus, a number of states hold that, where the negligent physician continues to treat the injured patient after the initial negligent act, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date this treatment is terminated. 2 Still
In the Reid case, the plaintiff sued the Government for the alleged negligent failure of Government physicians to advise him that he probably had incipient tuberculosis after they had given him a medical examination and had taken X-rays
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.