-
190 N.E. 487 New York Court of Appeals April 17, 1934
A physical injury sustained through the negligence of one person may be cured by the skill of a physician, or aggravated through his negligence.
The negligence of the physician may then give rise to a cause of action against him, to recover the damages which the injured person would not otherwise have sustained.
In such case satisfaction by the original wrongdoer of all damages caused by his wrong bars action against the negligent physician who aggravated the damage. The law does not permit a double satisfaction for a single injury.
-
196 N.E. 308 New York Court of Appeals May 21, 1935
Thus it appears that the claimant has sought from the insurance carrier, in an action for malpractice, damages caused by the negligence of physicians employed by the carrier which aggravated the result of the original injury, and he
A person who negligently injures another is not a joint tort feasor with a physician whose negligence thereafter aggravates the original injury.
More than that, these results would not have followed from the original injury but for the independent negligence of the physician.
-
187 N.E. 829 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court December 1, 1933
This is an action for alleged negligence, originally brought against a physician and after his death defended by his administrator.
The burden was on the plaintiff to establish a causal connection between negligence of the doctor and his injury; that is, to prove that an act or omission of the doctor caused the injury and also that such act or omission was negligent
This would not warrant the inference that the doctor had employed “.caustic” or that its use in such an operation was improper or negligent.
-
143 So. 251 Supreme Court of Florida August 2, 1932
and instruction of the physician or hospital throughout the treatment, and a poor result is obtained, or increased damages inflicted, because of the negligence of the physician or hospital, the negligence of the one who caused the
would have produced, or negligently aggravated the extent of the injury, the rule does apply.
of the original wrongdoer and a physician or hospital which *306 aggravates the injury, and no distinctly new injury is shown as the result of the negligence of the physician or hospital, such release covers and includes the injured
-
39 S.W.2d 269 Tennessee Supreme Court June 10, 1931
That was a suit at law in which it was held that, having used reasonable care in the selection of a physician, the master was not liable to his servant for injuries resulting’ from the negligence of that physician.
Nevertheless, if one is injured by the negligence of another and these injuries are aggravated by the negligence' of a physician, the negligence of the wrongdoer in causing the original injury is regarded as the proximate cause of
the damage flowing from the subsequent negligent treatment by the physician.
-
46 P.2d 633 Supreme Court of Kansas July 6, 1935 No. 32,350
The law regards the negligence of the person who causes the original injury as the proximate cause of damages flowing from the negligence of the physician and holds him liable therefor.
who may have been negligent in treating the case.
the treatment, and a poor result is obtained because of the negligence of the physician, the law regards the negligence of the one who caused the original injury as the proximate cause of the damages flowing from the negligence of
-
294 P. 351 Oregon Supreme Court March 18, 1930
The joint answer of the defendants admitted that Doctor Sabin treated plaintiff as a physician but denied negligence or lack of skill.
of attending physicians, where they act honestly.”
The assumption that the physician was negligent in treating plaintiff is based upon the condition of the pleadings under the rule stated in Miller v. Houston, 27 Colo.
-
1934 OK 283, 32 P.2d 716 Supreme Court of Oklahoma May 8, 1934 No. 21563
The plaintiff bases his claim of a right to a reversal of the judgment upon his contention that, in an action against physicians, where the plaintiff seeks to recover for pain and suffering caused by the negligence. and carelessness
He is not required to institute an action at law against the physician to recover for the result of the negligence or carelessness of the physician.
Herein the pain and suffering for which recovery is sought were alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the physicians, their unskillful and improper treatment of the plaintiff, and their lack of ordinary care in treating
-
79 P.2d 77 Utah Supreme Court May 19, 1938 No. 5920.
of the doctor.
his injuries caused by the negligence of the doctor.
*210 At common law the employee had a right of action against the doctor for malpractice where negligence of the physician aggravated the original injury.
-
283 P. 511 Supreme Court of Kansas January 11, 1930 No. 29,069
the physician throughout the treatment, and his injuries are aggravated, or a poor result obtained by the negligence of the physician, the law regards the negligence of the one who caused the original injury as the proximate cause
of *570 damages flowing from the negligence of the physician, and holds him liable therefor.
Neither would the rule apply if through his negligence the physician caused a distinctly new injury, as in Purchase v.
-
171 S.E. 535 West Virginia Supreme Court October 31, 1933 No. CC 483
, whose negligent treatment aggravates the injury so as to constitute a bar to an action by the injured person against the physician ?
“Where *252 servant’s leg was broken through negligence of employer, and thereafter through negligent treatment by the physician of the injury it became necessary to amputate the leg the employer and the physician * * * were not
‘‘A railway company, through whose negligence plaintiff’s wrist was fractured, and a physician, who treated the fracture so negligently as to cause partial loss of the use of the arm, were not joint tort-feasors # * Fisher v.
-
254 A.D. 265 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York May 27, 1938
She brings this action against defendant to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by her as a result of the negligent manner in which the doctor assigned by defendant performed the operation.
Defendant may be held liable only for its negligence in selecting the doctor, not for the latter’s negligence or malpractice in performing the *267 operation. (Hamburger v. Cornell University, 240 N. Y. 328 .)
Hence, it cannot be held to answer for the doctor’s negligence or malpractice. It may be held liable only for its negligence in selecting doctors who are incompetent and unfit to perform the work assigned to them.
-
192 A. 107 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 22, 1937 Nos. , 182
Other jurisdictions have held, with almost complete unanimity, that there can be no recovery in such a suit against a physician for negligent aggravation of injuries, after a settlement effected with the tort-feasor who caused the
* *212 In the action against Taylor plaintiff’s recovery for the injury to his hip would have included the added damage caused by the alleged negligence of defendant.
is therefore considered in law as an incident of the original injury, and, if the injured party has used ordinary care in the selection of a physician or surgeon, any additional harm resulting from the latter’s mistake or negligence
-
138 So. 411 Supreme Court of Alabama December 17, 1931 No. 4 Div. 584.
The demurrer of the defendant to the complaint, taking the point, among others, that it fails to aver that defendant was negligent in the selection and employment of the physician, was sustained, and the plaintiff declined to plead
It is also well settled thai/where a person negligently causes personal injury to another, and the injury and damage are aggravated by the malpractice of a physician or surgeon employed by the person causing the original injury, the
person causing the injury is not liable for aggravation of the injury or damage, unless he is negligent in the selection of the physician or surgeon.
-
233 N.W. 264 North Dakota Supreme Court November 25, 1930Cited by 23 Dissent · Burr
It is immaterial what right of action the employee had against the employer under the common law with reference to negligence of a doctor, for this was based on the negligence of the employer.
The court held any duty the employer owed the employee was discharged, when it selected a competent physician, but that the employer “was not liable to the employee for the negligence of the physicians.
When the bureau says it will allow for the negligence of the doctor it is doing an injury both to the fund and to the injured employee.
-
103 S.W.2d 1 Supreme Court of Missouri March 17, 1937
a separate common-law action against the negligent physician.
for that purpose; that these physicians, alleged to be the agents of the defendant, failed to properly advise him and negligently operated on his eye and negligently discharged him when he was not cured.
the alleged negligence of the physicians employed by the insurer.
-
74 S.W.2d 398 Supreme Court of Arkansas July 2, 1934 No. 4-3452Cited by 10 Dissent · McHaney
Runyan, was a careless, incompetent, negligent and an unskillful physician and surgeon.
Runyan, was a careless, incompetent, negligent and an unskillful physician and surgeon.” These latter allegations of negligence were denied by Dr. Runyan and appellant.
Runyan to be “a careless, incompetent, negligent and unskillful physician and surgeon. ’ ’ It becomes unnecessary to discuss the alleged negligence of Dr.
-
181 N.E. 661 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court June 27, 1932
Can a physician escape suit to decide whether negligence on his part has caused damage to a patient, because that patient has been paid compensation under G.
Thomas, 262 Mass. 383 , that an injured employee who has received compensation under the act cannot maintain an action against a physician whose negligence has aggravated his original injury.
L. c. 152, payment of such compensation, and pain and suffering resulting to the employee from alleged negligent acts of a physician who treated the employee for the injury, the insurer stated a case.
-
190 N.E. 229 Ohio Supreme Court March 28, 1934 No. 24233
The general rule is that where one who has suffered personal injuries by reason of the negligence of another exercises reasonable care in securing the services of a competent physician or surgeon, and his injuries are thereafter aggravated
or increased by the negligence, mistake, or lack of skill of such physician or surgeon, the law regards the negligence of the wrongdoer in causing the original injury as the proximate cause of the damages flowing from the subsequent
At the time of his injury H. was free from contributory negligence. Immediately after his injury he employed a physician of ‘good standing and reputation,’ placed *85 himself under his treatment, and followed his directions.
-
63 F.2d 953 Third Circuit March 3, 1933 No. 4983
selected by the insurance company was guilty of negligence in thereafter treating Bell; and, secondly, whether, if so, the doctor was an independent contractor or the agent of the insurance company.
The case therefore narrows down to whether there was evidence from which negligence of the doctor, and whether he was the insurance company’s agent, could be found.
As to the negligence of the physician, there was testimony which, if believed, showed negligence on the part of the doctor selected by the insurance company which resulted in the shortening of Bell’s leg, and the consequent results
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.