-
786 F.2d 237 Sixth Circuit March 24, 1986 Nos. 84-6103, 84-6122
Plaintiff obtained a judgment for compensatory damages from the United States (for negligence) and for punitive damages from the doctor, Paul Pichardo (for deliberate indifference).
Finally, plaintiff sought compensatory damages from the United States under the FTCA for the negligence of the doctor and the warden.
supervision by one of the Navy doctors.
-
127 F. Supp. 672 E.D. Michigan January 19, 1955 No. 1406
Plaintiff had been injured by a fall while cleaning an oily floor and it was claimed that due to the negligence of the attending physician he lost his leg.
As in the case at bar also, action was brought against both the physician and Ford Motor Company and the court held that any aggravation through the negligence of the physician would render the company liable for compensation and therefore
Then if that doctor is negligent action might arise in favor of the injured man, not against the employer, but against the doctor, since the doctor. *675 might be considered an independent contractor.
-
986 F.2d 1422 Sixth Circuit February 23, 1993 No. 92-3502Not cited Unpublished
The Hospital had hired a doctor who allegedly engaged in negligent conduct spanning an extended period of time.
Both companies insured the Hospital for part of that period. 4 As the underlying malpractice action approached trial, OHIC proposed that the case be settled for $900,000, with the negligent doctor paying $400,000 and the two insurers
The negligent physician next settled, for $525,000. St. Paul then settled for $175,000, of which the Hospital paid $100,000 as a deductible. In other words, St.
-
236 F. Supp. 411 M.D. Tennessee September 9, 1964 No. Civ. 3477
The Court held that the negligent act of the doctors in failing to commit the veteran to an institution was within the discretionary function exception.
Second, it must be shown that the physician in question negligently departed from that standard.
The patient who claims to have been injured through negligence has the burden of establishing the standard and proving that the physician departed negligently therefrom. Hohenthal v. Smith, 72 App.
-
334 F.2d 931 Sixth Circuit July 24, 1964 No. 15424
With regard to proximate cause, the District Court evidently had in mind the plaintiffs’ claim that the government doctors were negligent in not administering antibiotics to the boy, pre-operatively and post-operatively.
On appeal, in their reply brief, plaintiffs concede that they did not prove that the operation by the government doctors was negligently performed.
Plaintiffs complain that the government doctors were negligent in not administering antibiotics to the child for peritonitis from the morning of December 30, 1958, until the late afternoon of January 1, 1959.
-
216 F. Supp. 1 S.D. Ohio April 11, 1963 Nos. 5578, 5620
If the maxim, ‘Res ipsa loquitur,’ were applicable to a case like this, and a failure to *3 cure were held to be evidence, however slight, of negligence on the part of the physician or surgeon causing the bad result, few would
It held that while there was evidence that the defendant physician Ayas guilty of negligence in not discovering the disunion and in not seeking to bring about a second union, there was no evidence from which the jury could find that
indisputably shows that the greater probability *4 of the truth is that it would have resulted whether the doctor had been • guilty of negligence or not.’ ” The case of Bowers v.
-
110 F.3d 63 Sixth Circuit April 4, 1997 No. 96-5050Cited by 266 Unpublished
Thus, 7 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.
-
899 F.2d 1507 Sixth Circuit April 5, 1990 No. 89-3333
Jewell’s wife Diann brought the present diversity action against Holzer Clinic and several individual doctors on November 22, 1985, alleging medical negligence. After Mr.
The jury interrogatories showed that the jury believed the negligent physicians to be Drs. Burner, Brubaker, and Holzer. Yet all three doctors only examined the decedent prior to 1980.
Holzer had not conformed to the ordinary standard of care of a physician and that he was therefore negligent.
-
E.D. Kentucky January 23, 2023 No. 5:22-cv-00089Not cited
Lake Cumberland considered whether patients had a cause of action against a hospital for negligent credentialing (a common variety of corporate negligence) of a non- employee physician who was given staff privileges by the hospital
However, the court noted, “a claim of negligence against a hospital for the selection of its physicians is derivative of the medical malpractice claim against the physician” and “[w]ithout proof that the doctor committed malpractice
The plaintiff’s corporate negligence theory against the hospital was based on allegations of negligent credentialing, failing to oversee and monitor the physicians’ performances, and failing to follow its own procedures.
-
841 F.2d 1125 Sixth Circuit March 8, 1988 No. 87-5099Not cited Unpublished
First, they argue that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony from three doctors who testified that defendant Dr. Bohle was not negligent.
The primary issue at trial was whether the doctor was negligent by not identifying and protecting the ureter from harm.
Bohle was not negligent. Plaintiffs allege that it was error to allow these experts to testify that the doctor was not negligent because the witnesses did not have enough information on which to base such an opinion.
-
951 F.2d 351 Sixth Circuit December 10, 1991 No. 90-6542Not cited Unpublished
the patient is not ordinarily put on notice of the negligent conduct of the physician upon whose skill, judgment and advice he continues to rely. 11 Id., at 167-168 (quoting Myers v.
The court also rejected any claim of contributory negligence on the patient's part, stating that "(t)he fact that the patient ... continues in the doctor's care and knowingly continues his addiction will not make him contributorily
negligent unless he himself is doing something wrong or unless he knows his doctor is negligent."
-
838 F.2d 182 Sixth Circuit February 3, 1988 Nos. 86-5978, 86-5979 and 86-6122
A physician is not the insurer of the patient; he is only liable for negligence, and negligence is not presumed from the fact that the treatment is unsuccessful.
There is no presumption of negligence; rather, the law presumes the physician has discharged his full duty. Redwood v. Raskind, 49 Tenn.App. 69 , 350 S.W.2d 414 (1961).
Moreover, negligence may not be presumed from the mere fact of injury. Johnson v. Lawrence, 720 S.W.2d 50, 56 (Tenn.Ct.App.1986). An honest mistake in judgment is not sufficient to find a physician negligent. Perkins v.
-
861 F.2d 145 Sixth Circuit November 14, 1988 Nos. 87-5654, 87-5687 and 87-5688Cited by 2 Dissent · Wellford
The physicians’ testimony regarding what effect the negligent insertion of a nasogas-tric tube could have on an uninjured person is not relevant to the causation issue in Wiley’s case.
Because no reasonable jury could conclude that the negligence of the doctors was the proximate cause of Wiley’s coma and death, I would affirm the decision of the district court.
-
517 F.2d 1163 Sixth Circuit June 2, 1975 No. 74-1778
. § 413.140(l)(e), provides that an action for negligence or malpractice against a physician must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued.
Francis Hospital, 161 Cal.App.2d 800, 806 , 327 P.2d 131, 135 (1958): “The rule is clear, as to malpractice actions, that ‘while the physician-patient relation continues the plaintiff is not ordinarily put on notice of the negligent
conduct of the physician upon whose skill, judgment and advice he continues to rely.’
-
237 F.2d 229 Sixth Circuit October 5, 1956 No. 12535_1
Stapleton it was not liable to him as a matter of law even if they were negligent, upon the theory that by their very calling, physicians must be classified as independent contractors; and (3) that Stapleton was guilty of contributory
negligence.
It should thus be pointed out that there was no proof whatever of negligence on the part of the appellant’s physicians in the diagnosis of Stapleton’s condition.
-
975 F.2d 261 Sixth Circuit September 15, 1992 No. 90-1624Cited by 17 Dissent · Kennedy
Michigan law mandates that negligence actions involving doctor/patient medical risks be grounded on some evidence showing a breach of a standard of care.
The only exception is where the duty has been modified by statute, as in the case of emergency care by a good Samaritan doctor or health professional where liability is limited to cases of gross negligence or willful, wanton misconduct
-
489 F. Supp. 147 W.D. Tennessee April 30, 1980 No. 79-2565
In light of this overwhelming authority that a serviceman cannot sue the United States for the alleged negligence of military physicians, plaintiff’s complaint against the United States must be dismissed. 2 Defendants, in further
of any military physician, dentist, nurse, or other health personnel while acting within the scope of his duties.
She claims that because § 1089 makes the FTCA the exclusive remedy for negligence of military physicians, it contemplates that everyone should have a remedy; that where Feres bars the FTCA remedy, § 1089 does not apply, and servicemen
-
693 F.3d 696 Sixth Circuit August 28, 2012 No. 11-3424
The doctor also asserted that, because he “treated the plaintiff gratuitously, he is liable, if at all, only for gross negligence; which was refused.” Ibid.
subject, as to licensed physicians.”
This observation casts doubt on cases like Hinson that distinguish between a suit against a doctor for negligence and a suit against a doctor involving a more culpable mental state. 12 .
-
933 F. Supp. 668 E.D. Michigan August 2, 1996 No. 2:96-cv-71553
Following the death of her twin boys, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging two counts, the second of which is negligent infliction of emotional distress and the first of which alleges medical malpractice against the doctor
defendants and negligence against Omni Care in its selection and retention of physicians and health care facilities to diagnose, treat and care for Omni Care’s patrons, including plaintiffs.
The first plaintiff brought suit against the HMO under an ostensible agency theory for the negligence of various doctors and other medical-service providers and under a direct negligence theory for the HMO’s failure to exercise reasonable
-
276 F.3d 228 Sixth Circuit January 10, 2002 No. 00-5758
Rogers sued Ms doctors (who are not parties to this appeal) and the Hospital for negligent medical treatment and negligent failure to secure his informed consent for the amputation.
On February 4, 2000, the jury returned a verdict finding the two doctors negligent and awarding Rogers $2,599,832.52. The Hospital, however, was found not liable, and was subsequently dismissed with prejudice.
Both the doctors and Rogers appealed. Following a post-verdict settlement with the doctors, Rogers now pursues his appeal against the Hospital. II. ANALYSIS A.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.