-
60 F. 365 Eighth Circuit February 12, 1894 No. 342
or the negligence of their attendants.
It would be a hard rule, indeed, — a rule calculated to repress the charitable instincts of men, — that would compel those who have freely furnished such accommodations and services to pay for the negligence or mistakes of physicians
of the physicians or attendants he employed.
-
134 F.3d 1356 Eighth Circuit January 27, 1998 No. 97-1406
Shortly afterwards Klisch experienced medical complications, including a bowel injury, she claimed were due to the negligence of the doctors who performed the surgery.
This, in our judgment, is akin to telling the jury that a physician is not necessarily negligent because his/her treatment is unsuccessful. See Ouellette v.
In the application of this skill and learning the doctor ... must also use reasonable care. A doctor is not negligent simply because [his or her] efforts prove unsuccessful.
-
753 F.2d 702 Eighth Circuit February 1, 1985 No. 84-1652
But neither Brown, Johnson, nor Parker involved a serviceman on active duty complaining -of negligent surgery by military doctors in a military hospital.
He also argues that he is not specifically attacking the negligence of the Navy doctors, but rather contending that the surgery was without informed consent; had he known that Dr.
The bottom line is that he seeks recovery for injury caused by the Navy doctors’ negligence, both in their own conduct of the surgery and in their failure to secure the participation of Dr. Robinson. For that he cannot recover.
-
804 F.2d 435 Eighth Circuit October 28, 1986 No. 85-5369
An alternate definition of “negligence” is that: “Negligence” is the doing of something which a reasonable doctor would not do or the failure to do something which a reasonable doctor would do under like circumstances.
So, in answer to Question Number 2(a), make your judgment: Has the plaintiff shown by the greater weight of the evidence that these doctors were negligent, that they committed medical malpractice?
These instructions were a proper statement of Minnesota law on the negligence of doctors. See Kinning v. Nelson, 281 N.W.2d 849 (Minn.1979).
-
790 F.2d 682 Eighth Circuit June 12, 1986 No. 85-2065Cited by 27 Concurrence · Fagg
negligent acts.
Consequently, while Ewing has received $21,000 in worker’s compensation, he may still be able to prosecute his common law negligence claim against the Missouri doctor.
As a result, under Missouri law collateral estoppel presents no bar to Ewing’s negligence claim. See Oates v. Safeco Insurance Co., 583 S.W.2d 713, 719 (Mo.1979) (en banc); Bi-State Development Agency v.
-
420 F. Supp. 985 D. Nebraska October 20, 1976 No. Civ. 75-0-6
A party who negligently causes an injury so that the victim seeks medical care, and a physician who aggravates the damage by negligent treatment are not joint tortfeasors and are not subject to contribution from each other.
The question is whether the defendant may then shift the burden of any of these damages to the negligent physician.
Under such circumstances it is equitable and just that indemnity be allowed Herrero, and that the cross-defendant doctors and hospital bear that portion of the damages caused by their own negligent conduct. [Emphasis added].
-
75 F.3d 426 Eighth Circuit February 1, 1996 No. 95-2162
The serviceman had claimed Navy physicians had negligently performed surgery on him and had argued his injuries did not arise out of activity incident to service because he was not on active duty. Id. at 703.
This court concluded that: “[t]he bottom line is that [the serviceman] seeks recovery for injury caused by the Navy doctors’ negligence, both in their own conduct of the surgery and in their failure to secure the participation of [
a civilian physician.]
-
990 F. Supp. 1104 W.D. Arkansas December 24, 1997 No. Civil 97-3027
An employee died while in the care of the hospital department’s physicians and his family brought suit against the railroad company for the negligence of the physicians.
In holding that the supervising physicians were not vicariously liable for the negligence of the x-ray specialist, the court stated: the x-ray specialist ... like the physician and surgeon, unless he expressly contracts to produce
The court held that the physicians could not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the negligent acts of the emergency room physicians.
-
867 F.2d 1146 Eighth Circuit February 15, 1989 No. 88-1055
Keever, M.D. wherein she alleged that the doctors were negligent in their treatment of her foot. Campbell contends that the district court incorrectly ruled on several objections and motions made by the parties.
that they were negligent in failing to examine Campbell and that their negligence caused the loss of her foot.
Following a trial, the jury found for the doctors. II. Discussion A. Removal of Page Markers During the trial, Campbell offered her hospital records into evidence.
-
236 F. 200 Eighth Circuit October 3, 1916 No. 4657
He was not negligent in the selection of his physician, and his doctor testifies he was well enough to make the trip, and that he so advised the deceased.
It is not necessary for us to express an opinion as to whether, when one employs a physician who negligently advises him to take a trip, and then employs a carrier to take him on the trip, the negligence of the physician can be imputed
*204 Even if- the doctor was-negligent, and his negligence was imputed to the deceased, it would not defeat a recovery under this holding.
-
741 F.2d 229 Eighth Circuit August 24, 1984 No. 84-1532
the District Court for the Central District of Illinois against the three treating physicians, who were employees on the staff of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, alleging that her stroke was proximately caused by the physicians
’ negligence.
-
245 F.2d 756 Eighth Circuit June 28, 1957 No. 15697
In her complaint plaintiff alleged that while she was a patient of defendant doctors and was being hospitalized at the defendant hospital the defendant doctors- and defendant hospital carelessly, negligently and unskillfully cared
It is argued that the defendant hospital was charged only with carrying out the directions of the attending physicians and that as the doctors were found to be without negligence there is no basis in the evidence for attributing negligence
The question of the negligence of the attending physicians, in view of the record, is a moot question.
-
27 F.3d 1327 Eighth Circuit June 24, 1994 No. 93-1702Cited by 35 Dissent · Heaney
The MCA provides compensation to persons injured in the course of medical treatment if they can show that their injuries resulted from negligence by the physicians involved.
Due process requires that claimants be afforded fair procedures for presenting their claims of negligence.
-
428 F.2d 598 Eighth Circuit June 8, 1970 No. 19730_1
It stated: (1) that there was no competent evidence to show that either doctor was negligent in diagnosing or treating Tommy, (2) that there was evidence that both doctors and the Infirmary were negligent in failing to send slides
Milner was negligent in failing to refer the patient to Dr. Ogura. Dr. Milner consulted with five Little Rock physicians in October and November, and none of them diagnosed Tommy’s condition as being cancerous.
We agree with the District Court’s finding that there was evidence from which the jury could find the doctors and the Infirmary negligent for failing to send the slides to Barnes and A.F.I.P.
-
543 F.2d 44 Eighth Circuit November 5, 1976 No. 75-1841
The plaintiff contends that defendant hospital was negligent in failing to have a doctor in attendance to give prompt and proper care to the decedent.
of the physician is not sufficient to sustain the action.
In other words, in addition to a showing of negligence on the part of the physician, it must also be shown that if proper attendance had been given, a more satisfactory result would have followed.
-
658 F. Supp. 24 D. North Dakota December 11, 1986 No. A3-83-175
As amended, it is a medical malpractice action brought against fourteen doctors and the Neuropsychiatric Institute and St. Luke’s Hospital, based on their alleged negligence in their treatment of the plaintiff, Patricia E.
of the defendant physicians.
The plaintiff has claimed negligent conduct on the part of the hospital record-keeping and nursing staff in addition to the alleged negligence of the defendant physicians.
-
526 F.2d 202 Eighth Circuit December 19, 1975 No. 75--1023
Trinidad, the court instructed the jury as follows: You are instructed that whether or not the injury complained of by plaintiff was the result of the defendant doctors’ negligence in failing to use reasonable skill and care in the
In this case, the defendant doctors’ negligence cannot be based upon the testimony of lay witnesses.
Trinidad in failing to convey any medical decision he made to the nurse-anesthetist could be established only by physician-expert witnesses.
-
904 F.2d 450 Eighth Circuit June 1, 1990 No. 89-1655
Instead, the doctor pronounced Bowers fit for duty. Bowers’s cancer went untreated (thus the harm from the doctor’s alleged negligence). Bowers was then sworn in to the Air Force Reserve.
relationship between Bowers and the armed forces is distinctively federal, and the relationship would be disrupted by the application of the laws of the several states on medical malpractice, depending on where various alleged incidents of negligence
Second, a court decision that the physicians who examined Bowers were negligent would have a direct effect upon military judgments and decisions.
-
869 F.2d 1165 Eighth Circuit March 16, 1989 No. 88-1819
(per curiam), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1029 , 105 S.Ct. 3505 , 87 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985) (claim against military doctor for negligent surgery and failure to secure participation of civilian doctor barred).
-
69 F.3d 541 Eighth Circuit October 31, 1995 No. 95-1849Not cited Unpublished
PER CURIAM. 1 George Melvin Cannon appeals the District Court's 1 dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his claims against the United States for allegedly negligent medical treatment from military physicians while
On October 1, 1993, he filed an administrative tort claim with the Department of the Army alleging negligent medical treatment by military physicians.
United States, 904 F.2d 450, 451-52 (8th Cir.1990) (holding FTCA claim for allegedly negligent pre-induction physical by Air Force doctor was barred by Feres ). We further note that 10 U.S.C.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.