-
382 So. 2d 702 Supreme Court of Florida April 3, 1980 No. 57815
Allegedly, her injuries were exacerbated by her doctor, who, it is claimed, negligently performed an unsuccessful laminectomy and fusion of Ms. Bissonette's spine.
The initial tortfeasor is simply trying to recoup his losses that in fairness should be shared with a negligent doctor.
Under this doctrine the financial burden is equitably apportioned among the responsible parties, and negligent doctors can no longer escape liability for their actions.
-
681 P.2d 1038 Supreme Court of Kansas April 27, 1984 No. 55,655Cited by 122 Dissent · Schroeder
The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of her doctors and on the part of Ortho.
Ortho objected to the dismissal of the physicians, and at trial sought to have their negligence compared.
It cannot be successfully argued the doctors were not negligent in the administration of this prescription drug, or in their treatment of this young plaintiff, after her blood pressure in December 1974 was diagnosed by them as high
-
423 N.W.2d 848 Wisconsin Supreme Court May 31, 1988 No. 87-0029
fact that the specific physician who committed the negligent act was an independent contractor.
Trinity, on the other hand, argues that a hospital’s liability should be limited to that stemming from negligence in selecting a physician and from the negligence of a physician who is an employee of the hospital.
According to Trinity, to impose liability when the treating physician is not a servant and the hospital has not been negligent in selecting the physician would make a hospital liable for all acts of negligence occurring within the
-
628 P.2d 337 New Mexico Court of Appeals April 16, 1981 No. 4637
Civ. 8.1, that the only way it could decide whether the Doctor was negligent was “from evidence presented in this trial by physicians and surgeons testifying as expert witnesses.”
were based on negligence on the part of the Doctor.
The jury’s answers established that the Doctor was not negligent. Negligence on the part of the Doctor is not involved in this point.
-
613 P.2d 238 California Supreme Court July 10, 1980 No. L.A. 31226
She asserts that the doctors who treated her were negligent, and that she suffered additional injuries as a result of their negligence.
The issue, then, is whether the fact that plaintiff is seeking to hold liable the county which employed the allegedly negligent doctors rather than the negligent physician-employer himself is determinative.
The fact that the county allegedly breached this obligation by employing negligent doctors rather than by some other purportedly negligent act did not absolve it of its responsibility to assure that the medical care which it directly
-
848 F.2d 1364 Fifth Circuit August 18, 1988 No. 87-3478
physician.”
issue as to whether defendants negligently hired the doctor?
Barbet-ta’s diabetes somehow proves that Bahama Cruise must have been negligent — apparently, the Barbettas are asserting that it is negligence per se to hire a doctor who cannot diagnose a condition, as the Barbettas characterize
-
361 S.E.2d 164 Supreme Court of Georgia October 21, 1987 No. 44468
The Browns contended that Isiah Brown was seriously injured due to the negligent rendering of medical services by the two doctors. This alleged negligence was charged to University Hospital on the basis of respondeat superior.
of the doctors.
It should be noted that the doctrine can seldom apply to the customary situation in which a patient consults his own doctor who then has him admitted to a hospital where the doctor renders negligent medical services.
-
521 A.2d 1377 New Jersey Superior Court App Division December 3, 1986
The question presented in this medical malpractice case is whether an unsolicited opinion contained in the report of plaintiff's treating physician, that the defendant-doctor was not negligent in his treatment of the plaintiff, is
Included in the report was the treating physician's opinion that defendant-doctor was not negligent in the performance of the surgery.
negligence of defendant-doctor.
-
651 S.W.2d 364 Tex. App. Ct., 12th Dist. (Tyler) April 28, 1983 No. 12-81-0075-C
In each, the plaintiff sought to hold the doctor liable for negligent treatment of him or her as a patient. *368 On the other hand, in the instant case a physician-patient relationship undisputedly existed between Dr.
The doctor and Group Health denied negligence, and were dismissed at the conclusion of the evidence on the grounds that the evidence showed no standard of care to which the doctor was bound, and even if negligent in failing to warn
The court went on to hold: 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
-
764 P.2d 1202 Supreme Court of Colorado November 28, 1988 No. 86SC307Cited by 45 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Mullarkey
The physicians took that decision away from the parents and, by their negligence, made that decision for the parents and for Pierce.
That denial of an informed decision is the injury caused to Pierce by the physicians’ negligence.
This denial of the child’s claim only serves to immunize negligent physicians. Pierce’s claims for lack of informed consent and negligent misrepresentation should be reinstated.
-
513 N.E.2d 387 Illinois Supreme Court October 5, 1987 Nos. 62700, 62701, 62702, 62703, 62704 cons.Cited by 349 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Simon
The cause of action against the doctors presents neither the problems inherent in upholding the negligence count against the hospital nor the complex policy considerations involved in extending the boundaries of the tort of medical
The majority’s view that the .plaintiff here was too remote to fall within the scope of the doctors’ duty of care (117 Ill. 2d at 530) is overly narrow under any modern theory of negligence.
’ conduct negligent.
-
449 N.E.2d 628 Indiana Court of Appeals June 9, 1983 No. 4-1181A182
White and Ireland Road Family Physicians, Inc. The action arose out of the alleged negligence of the doctors which purportedly caused the fatal heart attack of Max Fall on April 11, 1978.
Where there are two or more methods of treating a problem which are recognized as proper by physicians in similar practices at the time in question, it is not negligence for the physician to adopt any one of the recognized treatment
*636 A physician is negligent where he selects a treatment method which is not recognized as proper by physicians with the same specialty in this or similar communities at the time in question."
-
455 A.2d 810 Supreme Court of Vermont December 1, 1982 No. 387-80
Her original complaint sought to impute the alleged negligence of the defendant physician to the hospital on the basis of respondeat superior.
Accordingly, I am compelled reluctantly to dissent from the reversal of the jury's verdict in favor of the physician on the medical negligence count.
I would affirm the judgment in favor of the defendant physician on the negligence count. NOTES [1] Flagyl is a brand name for the chemical metronidazole. [2] Mrs.
-
655 F.2d 1034 Tenth Circuit August 6, 1981 No. 80-1420
Newcomb’s representative argues a separate cause of action arises out of each negligent diagnosis by a military doctor.
New-comb recognized in 1973 that some of the military doctors who saw him were negligent because he had visited them for bed-wetting; he identified bedwetting with his kidney problems.
Additionally, the evidence indicates that in 1973 Newcomb was aware that at least some of the military doctors had been negligent in failing to properly diagnose his medical problem.
-
743 P.2d 186 Utah Supreme Court August 18, 1987 No. 19218
Prior to the 1978 amendment, the doctors as governmental employees had no immunity from suit for their simple negligence.
First, we look at the alleged negligent advice of the doctors.
Since there was no allegation of gross negligence, fraud, or malice, that section precludes the personal liability of the doctors. II.
-
648 S.W.2d 861 Kentucky Supreme Court April 20, 1983
Subsequently the parents sued the doctor alleging negligence in the sterilization procedure and the post-operative treatment.
The majority opinion states that "the parents sued the doctor alleging negligence in the sterilization procedure."
Viewed simply as a negligence case, we cannot escape the conclusion that the negligent physician is liable for expenses reasonably foreseeable in connection with rearing the child.
-
772 P.2d 26 Court of Appeals of Arizona January 19, 1989 No. 2 CA-CV 88-0256
Her instruction on this theory was rejected by the trial court which, instead, instructed the jury that the referring physician is not liable for the negligent acts of the covering physician so long as the referring physician exercises
The general rule is that a physician is not liable for a substitute’s negligence unless the substitute physician is in his employment or is his agent, partner, or unless due care is not exercised in making the substitution.
If liability were now to be imposed vicariously on physicians for the independent negligence of their covering doctors, some would doubtless be discouraged from making arrangements for the continuous care of their patients, but those
-
625 S.W.2d 463 Supreme Court of Arkansas December 7, 1981 No. 81-122
In this case the appellants offered no expert testimony that the doctor was negligent. The doctor produced expert medical testimony that there was no negligence.
When a plaintiff alleges that the physician who diagnosed his ailment or treated or operated upon him was negligent, AMI 501 applies.” The 1980 Note on Use [revised] of AMI 1501 reiterated this position.
To the contrary, the note on use following AMI 301 (negligence) refers to AMI 1501 for the definition of negligence on the part of a physician.
-
523 N.E.2d 284 New York Court of Appeals March 29, 1988
A physician who designates another doctor to "cover” for him, in the circumstances presented, is not liable for the covering doctor’s own negligence in treating the regular physician’s patient.
If liability were now to be imposed vicariously on physicians for the independent negligence of their covering doctors, some would doubtless be discouraged from making arrangements for the continuous care of their patients, but those
By the same token, covering doctors are independently responsible, as treating physicians, for their negligence. 5 Thus, we decline to enlarge the doctrine of vicarious liability to reach the situation here, and conclude that it was
-
646 S.W.2d 655 Court of Appeals of Texas February 17, 1983 No. 2-82-089-CV
Testimony by a medical expert of whether a defendant doctor was negligent, or of what constitutes negligence or malpractice on the part of a defendant doctor, or what that medical expert would have done, is inadmissible in a medical
Then, unless the evidence shows as a matter of law that the doctor is not negligent or that his negligence, if any, was not a proximate cause of his patient’s injury, the jury is to determine whether the doctor met the standard of
was negligent.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.