-
946 F.2d 1467 Ninth Circuit October 22, 1991 No. 90-35880
It explained that a physician could not “avoid liability for the harm caused by treatment from other physicians if his own negligence was the cause of the injury which necessitated that treatment.” Id.
Like the first physician, the second one performed the procedure negligently. The second surgeon’s negligence caused a brain abscess. 374 N.E.2d at 345 .
On remand, the district court must determine whether Daly’s private physician was negligent. If it finds Daly’s physician negligent, then the award against the VA must be reduced appropriately.
-
125 F. Supp. 411 E.D. Washington October 28, 1954 No. 1181
or carelessness of the employer’s selected physician.”
of the physicians who treated the injury.
negligence in the selection.
-
750 F.2d 791 Ninth Circuit December 28, 1984 No. 84-1542
In the Army claim, the Raddatzes alleged negligence by Army Doctor Arner for the negligent perforation of Mrs. Raddatz’ uterus during insertion of an IUD.
It is a separate claim involving separate doctors, separate facilities, and acts of negligence different from the Army claim.
Rather, it is based on the development of an infection in and around the perforation, allegedly caused by the negligence of Navy doctors in failing to diagnose or warn Mrs.
-
5 F.3d 1302 Ninth Circuit September 27, 1993 No. 92-35029
Co., Inc., 671 F.2d 825 (4th Cir.1982), the Fourth Circuit held that the United States was not responsible under the FTCA for the negligence of a private physician who contracted with the Public Health Service to furnish outpatient
That case again concerned the alleged negligence of contract physicians in a VA hospital.
It does not extend the government's liability to cover the negligence of contract physicians.
-
414 F. Supp. 57 D. Arizona May 26, 1976 No. CIV 75-10-TUC-WCF
Subsequently, on July 9, 1974, the plaintiff filed an administrative claim with the Air Force seeking compensation for the negligent failure of Air Force physicians to diagnose her husband’s cancerous condition.
In substance, the claim filed with the Air Force stated that its physicians were negligent in the years 1969 and 1970.
No allegation was made in the claim that the Air Force physicians were negligent following the decedent’s retirement from active duty.
-
209 F. 970 W.D. Washington December 31, 1913 No. 2,539
Where the master employs a physician, is the owner liable in all events for the negligence of that physician, or is he liable only where the master fails to exercise reasonable care in selecting the physician?
The master is not negligent when he exercises reasonable care in selecting and employs a regularly licensed physician, believing him to be competent, and intrusts the injured seaman to his care, in the belief that such physician will
This cannot of itself constitute negligence, since it is manifest that an injured seaman cannot in every instance have the choice of physicians, regardless of expediency or expense.
-
188 F. Supp. 219 N.D. California November 23, 1959 No. 27807
In its first claim, libellant asserts that the death was caused by negligent treatment by employees of the defendant, a physician and nurses, and he seeks to recover damages for wrongful death against the nurses, the physician, and
■ As to the first claim for relief, respondent shipowner seeks dismissal, relying upon the ancient rule that a shipowner is liable for its negligence in hiring an incompetent physician, but is not liable for negligent treatment
Particularly, we have been unable to ascertain whether libellant is-alleging breach of the shipowner’s duty to exercise due care in the selection of' competent physicians, or whether libellant merely seeks to allege negligent failure
-
462 F.2d 72 Ninth Circuit June 14, 1972 No. 26771
They claim the death was proximately caused by negligent failure of the duty doctor at Tripler Army Hospital, Hawaii, to admit McBride to a coronary care unit.
The plaintiffs sought to prove that the duty doctor had been negligent in his diagnosis and should have insisted that McBride be hospitalized.
We do not mean to imply that we believe the duty doctor acted negligently.
-
268 F.3d 661 Ninth Circuit October 9, 2001 No. 99-56234
Where a doctor, for example, gives negligent treatment to an injury, one would expect to be able to sue the doctor for that negligence.
-
22 F.3d 933 Ninth Circuit April 25, 1994 No. 92-36733
Marchand sued five doctors and the Mercy Medical Center. After a lengthy trial the jury found Farris, Blome and Truksa negligent, and apportioned each 33 percent of the fault.
He claimed that the negligent doctors had improperly failed to admit some requests for admission that he proved at trial.
The requests asked the doctors to admit negligence, to admit that Marchand’s immobilization devices were removed at the hospital, and to admit causation. The court imposed fees and costs of $205,798.34 against Farris alone.
-
64 F.3d 482 Ninth Circuit August 23, 1995 No. 93-56599
The district court concluded that the physician was negligent in reassuring Mrs. Saunders regarding future pregnancy. The proper standard of medical care would have been to advise Mrs.
In the California cases, although the doctors could have prevented the pregnancy, they could not have prevented the defect. In this case, had the doctor not been negligent, he could have prevented the injury.
Mullikin Medical Ctr., 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 819, 827-28 (Cal.Ct.App.1993) (even though child’s injuries were caused by post-conception negligence, child could maintain wrongful life action where negligence of doctor in failing to test for
-
Ninth Circuit March 27, 2020 No. 18-17211Not cited Unpublished
In his complaint, Kornberg asserted that VA doctors were negligent for “failing to provide proper, appropriate and necessary care and treatment” to Kornberg’s shoulder injury.
Instead, Kornberg characterized his claim as targeting the lack of “supervision of the VA doctors at issue and how that negligent supervision contributed to his injuries,” and 2 he asserted that the Government had not complied
The Government cannot be held vicariously liable unless the doctors themselves were negligent or otherwise engaged in “actionable conduct.” McCrosky v. Carson Tahoe Reg’l Med.
-
353 F.2d 578 Ninth Circuit November 16, 1965 No. 19446_1
Both parents testified that they had never consulted a private physician for the child’s treatment, that at all times she had been attended by naval doctors, and that at no time were they told that there was negligent treatment.
As to the first and second of these contentions, it is true, as emphasized by appellants, that no government physician stated that there had been negligent treatment of the child.
Again quoting the district judge, “To expect a doctor, voluntarily, absent an inquiry and absent special situations not existent here, to affirmatively advise a patient that he has been negligently treated, is unrealistic, and no cases
-
282 F.3d 1164 Ninth Circuit April 24, 2002 No. 00-56450Cited by 243 Dissent · Tallman
As the Seventh Circuit explained, “[n]o lawyer would dream of arguing on behalf of a hospital that, although the hospital is liable in tort for staff physicians’ negligence and intentional misconduct, it is not liable for their ‘gross
-
583 F. App'x 689 Ninth Circuit July 17, 2014 No. 12-56201Not cited Unpublished
However, reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, they allege negligence independent of the contract, just as a patient can sue a doctor for negligence even though the patient and doctor also have a
-
947 F. Supp. 1354 D. Arizona November 19, 1996 No. CIV-96-1362-PHX-ROS
In that case, the plaintiff brought state law claims against her doctors for medical malpractice claims against her doctors and state law claims against the HMO for vicarious liability and for negligent selection of unqualified physicians
In Chaghervand , the plaintiff brought claims against her doctors and her HMO, alleging that the HMO had been directly negligent and vicariously liable in the failure to timely diagnose. and treat her.
It is difficult to see how this claim against the HMO can be extricated from the claim that the doctors were negligent, at least in part, for failing to refer Diane Schwartz to a specialist when she told her doctor she had found a
-
224 F.2d 748 Ninth Circuit June 27, 1955 No. 14307_1
The claimed negligent act of administration of penicillin to appellant at Pen-ang, without the presence of a doctor, has no merit.
The “shot” was given on the advice of a physician and it nowhere appears that it would have been administered in a different manner had a doctor been present.
Negligence also is claimed in the failure to hospitalize appellant or obtain the services of a doctor for him when the ship put in to Pulosambo.
-
64 F.3d 482 Ninth Circuit August 23, 1995 No. 93-56599Not cited
The reasoning behind this was simple--the doctors should not be forced to pay for something that, even had they not been negligent, was never a possibility.
In the California cases, although the doctors could have prevented the pregnancy, they could not have prevented the defect. In this case, had the doctor not been negligent, he could have prevented the injury.
Mullikin Medical Ctr., 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 819, 827-28 (Cal.Ct.App.1993) (even though child's injuries were caused by post-conception negligence, child could maintain wrongful life action where negligence of doctor in failing to test for
-
380 F.2d 310 Ninth Circuit August 23, 1967 No. 20585Cited by 43 Dissent · Hamlin
In each case, however, the injury, if any, is a result of the negligence of the doctor, and the patient should have a right of action if he files such action within the proper time after the cause of action accrues.
according to the standard of the then medical knowledge in the locality where the physician practiced his profession. .
In a federal tort claims action for negligent medical treatment this court stated: “There is no dispute that the claim accrued when the claimant knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the acts constituting
-
776 F. Supp. 1417 S.D. California October 11, 1991 No. 88-1125-WCP(P)
A physician is not necessarily negligent because he errs in judgment or because his efforts prove unsuccessful. The physician is negligent only if the error in judgment or lack of success is due to a failure to perform his duty.
The fact that another physician might have elected to treat the case differently or use methods other than those employed by defendant physician does not in itself establish negligence. Costa v.
California law presumes that a physician has done his work properly. Negligence on the part of a physician is never presumed; it must be proved. Bruce v. United States, 167 F.Supp. 579, 583 (S.D.Cal.1958); Huffman v.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.