-
383 P.2d 1005 Oregon Supreme Court July 15, 1963
But the. law also recognized the workman’s right to keep the two claims separate and to sue the employer for his negligence and the physician for the consequences of his malpractice.
physician.
We are aware of no reason why a negligent physician should not be held liable for his failure to have acted with reasonable care.
-
145 N.W.2d 112 Wisconsin Supreme Court October 7, 1966
The verdict inquired whether the hospital was negligent in its nursing care and whether the doctors were negligent in their professional-medical care and treatment.
True, the question was too broadly phrased to include the defendant doctors because under the evidence any contributory negligence of Carson could not be set off against any negligence of the doctors.
Likewise, the questions on apportionment of negligence should not have included the doctors. However, this error was not prejudicial in view of the answers to the other inquiries finding the defendants were not negligent.
-
227 Cal. App. 2d 69 California Court of Appeal May 6, 1964 Nos. 21146, 21147
and his injuries are aggravated by the negligence of such doctor, the law regards the act of the original wrongdoer as a proximate cause of the damages flowing from the subsequent negligent medical treatment and holds him liable therefor
The court determined that plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment against all defend *76 ants, and that the original negligent defendant would he entitled to judgment against the negligent doctor for the aggravation of damages
It is alleged that a blood transfusion was negligently administered to decedent by the cross-defendant doctors and hospital and that decedent died the day following her admission to the hospital.
-
370 P.2d 156 Supreme Court of Colorado April 2, 1962 No. 19877
Having determined that the disability resulting from the negligent treatment by the physician was compensable, it remains to be determined whether the physician whose negligence increased the disability is a third person under C.R.S
insurer are entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the employee in his malpractice action against the negligent physician.
However, the employee’s claim, being bifurcated, he can recover from the doctor only such damages as flow from the doctor’s negligence.
-
401 P.2d 350 Washington Supreme Court January 7, 1965 No. 37100
The bus company and driver answered and cross-complained against the doctor and Group Health, alleging that the sole cause of the accident was the negligence of the doctor.
The doctor and Group Health denied negligence and claimed that the driver was hypersensitive to pyribenzamine.
The negligence of the bus driver is a jury question, and should the jury find the bus driver to be negligent, the doctor would nevertheless be liable if the jury finds he failed to give warning of the side effects of the drug, since
-
1960 OK 123, 357 P.2d 1005 Supreme Court of Oklahoma May 10, 1960 No. 38650
That is, she sought damages against the doctor for his alleged negligent aggravation of her prior injuries (resulting from the fall on the hospital floor) by improper treatment. Dr.
And it is the general rule that there can be no recovery in a malpractice suit by one who has sustained personal injuries in consequence of a third person's negligence, against a physician for negligent aggravation of such injuries
or surgeon for damages incurred by his negligent treatment of the injury, at least in the absence of a finding that the negligence of the physician or surgeon produced an entirely new injury."
-
139 S.E.2d 761 Supreme Court of North Carolina January 15, 1965 No. 673
Hankins, 249 N.C. 199 , 105 S.E. 2d 642 , to the effect that a general release executed in favor of one responsible for the original injury protects a physician or surgeon against a claim based on negligent treatment of the injury
The physician or surgeon is in no wise responsible for the prior injuries, nor should a release to one who caused them be a shield by which 'a negligent doctor may escape liability for his own negligence.
Such a release by judgment is embraced in G.S. 1-540.1, and does not relieve a negligent doctor.
-
148 S.E.2d 548 Supreme Court of North Carolina June 16, 1966 No. 540
The insurance carrier filed a cross-complaint against the physician for contribution on the theory that if the carrier and the physician were negligent they were joint tort feasors.
The decision in the Hoover case does not relate to the right of the injured employee to proceed directly against the physician or surgeon for damages due to negligent treatment of the original injury.
This provision of the Act has no relation to the liability of an attending physician or surgeon for negligence in the treatment of an injured employee.
-
227 A.2d 220 Court of Appeals of Maryland March 10, 1967 Nos. [No. 93, September Term, 1966.]
Jiji and Maryland General Hospital negligently failed to bring the cancerous findings of the pathology test to the attention of Dr. Mays; charged Doctors Mays, Acosta-Otero and Kent, and Mr.
“the courts in suits against physicians regard negligence as the gist of the action, whatever the phraseology of the pleadings.”
Comstock, 270 F. 2d 839 (5th Cir. 1959), where the court, in considering the question of whether a suit against a doctor for negligent treatment sounded in tort or contract in order to determine the applicable statute of limitations
-
187 N.E.2d 556 New York Court of Appeals December 31, 1962
who negligently treated those injuries. .
It is settled that a wrongdoer is liable for all of the proximate results of his own tortious act, including (in a case such as the present) the aggravation of the original injury caused by the negligence of the physician.
physician as well.
-
152 N.W.2d 129 Supreme Court of Minnesota July 7, 1967 No. 40481
The amended complaint in this action alleged that the death of William Mellin on July 31,1963, was caused by the negligence of defendant physicians and the negligence and breach of warranty of defendant drug company in the manufacture
Liability rests upon proof of negligence judged by the standard of whether or not the physician brought and applied to the case at hand that degree of skill, care, knowledge, and attention ordinarily possessed and exercised by other
They were clearly not negligent in their initial use of dilantin, for a physician may properly adopt a method of treatment approved by a considerable number of other physicians in good standing in his community. 3 It was undisputed
-
438 P.2d 829 Washington Supreme Court March 28, 1968 No. 37823
when, frequently, as here, the only doctor who witnessed the allegedly negligent acts was the defendant.
John’s Hosp., 63 Wn.2d 369 , 387 P.2d 527 (1963), to support his contention that negligence can be shown only by the testimony of doctors.
doctors in Tacoma, who can be a little more negligent' than doctors in Seattle, who can be considerably more negligent than the doctors in New York City.
-
218 A.2d 303 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March 22, 1966 Nos. , No. 372
The plaintiffs contended that one of the defendants, a practicing physician, was negligent in not properly examining and timely diagnosing the decedent’s illness while he was under his care, and that due to this carelessness the condition
In its charge, the trial court, at the request of defendant’s counsel, instructed the jury that “there is a presumption against the negligence of a physician in treating a patient . . . there is presumption that he is doing what he
There is a distinct and important difference between stating that the plaintiff has the burden of proving the negligence asserted, and that the defendant-physician is presumed to be free from negligence.
-
188 Cal. App. 2d 535 California Court of Appeal January 26, 1961 No. Civ. 24797
Thus, plaintiff seeks to hold his insured employer in an independent suit on two theories—for its negligence in sending him to an unqualified doctor who, by his negligent diagnosis and treatment aggravated the injury; and for its negligence
Corp., 19 Cal.App.2d 564 [ 66 P.2d 184 ], affirmed an order sustaining a general demurrer without leave to amend an action against the carrier for the negligence of the doctors in performing an operation on plaintiff’s elbow; he
Thus, if plaintiff seeks recovery against the employer either for its negligence in sending him to an unqualified doctor for treatment or for the negligence of the doctor in diagnosing and treating his injury, his remedy is solely
-
368 F.2d 626 Fourth Circuit October 27, 1966 No. 10432_1
The plaintiff, administrator of her estate, alleges that death was due to the negligence of the doctor on duty at the dispensary of the United States Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Virginia, in diagnosing and treating her illness
The District Court, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the doctor was negligent, or that his eoncededly erroneous diagnosis and treatment was the proximate cause of her death, dismissed the complaint.
Only if a patient is adequately examined, is there no liability for an erroneous diagnosis. 1 Our conclusion that the physician was negligent in his diagnosis and treatment of the patient is not inconsistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52
-
187 A.2d 320 Court of Appeals of Maryland January 16, 1963 Nos. [No. 129, September Term, 1962.]
The third count sought to recover in tort from an employer’s workmen’s compensation insurer for alleged negligence, consisting of claimed malpractice of physicians selected by the insurer for treatment of an employee’s injuries.
Reifschneider in tort for negligence. The first two counts of his declaration were against the doctors and are not involved in this appeal.
appellee, and that the physicians were negligent in failing to diagnose and treat him for spondylolisthesis and in sending him back to work, where his original injury was aggravated.
-
380 P.2d 301 Nevada Supreme Court April 4, 1963 No. 4562
for negligent treatment of the injury where the injured person claims new and additional injury directly and proximately caused by the negligence and carelessness of the physician and surgeon and further where the injured party makes
It does not in terms contain a reservation of the right to seek compensation from the doctors treating appellant’s injury, for negligence in such treatment.
“It is settled that where one who has suffered personal injuries by reason of the tortious act of another exercises due care in securing the services of a doctor and his injuries are aggravated by the negligence of such doctor, the
-
161 S.E.2d 446 Court of Appeals of Georgia April 3, 1968 No. 43381
The above two charges are correct principles of law, whether the negligence charged to physicians is the negligence of the physicians directly or under the rule of respondeat superior.
Since, under the pleadings and evidence, the direct negligence of the defendant physicians was not involved, the jury could have concluded reasonably, under the charge as a whole, that the negligence, if any, of the defendants must
-
164 A.2d 357 New Jersey Superior Court App Division October 10, 1960
In it, the female plaintiff and her plaintiff husband, who sued per quod, charged the defendant doctor with negligence, in performing a therapeutic abortion on the female plaintiff in March 1957 at the West Jersey Hospital, Camden,
Blanchard, 109 N.J.L. 332 ( E. & A. 1932), it was held that an action against a physician based on negligence was barred by the statute after the two-year period following the operation, even though the physician's wrongful conduct
There is no valid assertion of any continuing course of negligent treatment thereafter. Apparently there was none, since what was done on March 22, 1957 by the defendant doctor was corrective, properly done, and not negligent.
-
359 P.2d 1090 Oregon Supreme Court February 21, 1961
Winkler after September 18, 1951, but only instructed them that they could not return a verdict against appellant unless they found as a fact that one of these physicians was negligent.
Shapiro; and it is understandable that having, in their deliberations, found these physicians negligent, they did not realize that in order to return a verdict against appellant it was necessary to return one against the negligent
doctors.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.