-
2022 Ohio 4265, 218 N.E.3d 731 Ohio Supreme Court December 1, 2022 No. 2021-0241
, but only after a determination that the doctor had been negligent.
Though a negligent-credentialing claim is independent, our caselaw is patently clear: negligent-credentialing claims are not viable in the 4 January Term, 2022 absence of medical negligence by the treating doctor.
Being able to drag a doctor who has already settled with a patient back into a negligent- credentialing case might lead to fewer medical-negligence settlements. 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO physician was negligent is precluded from
-
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania July 28, 2023 No. 7 WAP 2022Not cited
Having established that the negligent physicians were obligated to indemnify the Hospital, the Hospital filed an action against DCI.
Permitting the Hospital to seek indemnification and contribution from the corporate employers of negligent physicians allows for factual development on the issue of which entity exercised the control necessary to deter negligence
placing the financial burden of negligent physicians on the party best situated [J-68-2022] [MO: Brobson, J.] - 13 to prevent similar occurrences of negligence.
-
2024 UT 5, 545 P.3d 226 Utah Supreme Court February 15, 2024 No. 20220815
Birt before her death due to the doctors’ negligence. The doctors argued, in part, that Ms. Meeks did not provide any evidence allowing a jury to reasonably infer that Ms.
Meeks presented insufficient evidence to prove that the doctors’ negligence caused Ms.
Meeks pointed to various acts or omissions to support her claim that the doctors were negligent. Those acts or omissions fell within one of two broad categories: that the doctors failed to fully inform the family of Ms.
-
213 A.D.3d 712 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York February 1, 2023 No. 66636/14
The causes of action arose out of the same conduct, to wit, the alleged negligence of the doctor defendants and the PA defendants in providing medical care and treatment to the decedent, which they all did within the scope of their
Here, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the PA defendants are united in interest with the doctor defendants, as she has failed to show that the doctor defendants are vicariously liable for the PA's alleged negligent acts or
Further, while "[a] physician can be held vicariously liable for another physician's active negligence if the physician had 'some control of' the actively negligent physician's 'course of treatment' of a patient" ( Ross v Mandeville
-
533 P.3d 1 Oregon Supreme Court July 7, 2023 No. S069760
In this wrongful death action—which raises mul- tiple claims of medical negligence against physicians and others—we must decide two questions.
A failure to use such care, skill, or diligence is negligence. “Physicians are not negligent merely because their efforts were unsuccessful. A physician does not guarantee a good result by undertaking to perform a service.”
And instructing the jury to consider a consequence of its finding on the question of negligence risks confusing the jury about the standard that it must use to evaluate whether the physician was negligent.
-
2026 OK 27 Supreme Court of Oklahoma April 28, 2026 No. 122395Not cited
Bean does not have a qualified expert to render standard of care opinions relating to her physician negligence claims, and Nurse Hadaway is not qualified to do so.
Instead, nurses have a duty to follow physician orders unless the orders are obviously negligent. Id . ¶18 Here, Bean claims that Hospital nurses are directly liable for their failure to question the physicians' orders.
¶19 To prove this claim under Strubhart , Bean must first establish that Hospital physicians' instructions were negligent.
-
207 A.D.3d 684 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York July 20, 2022 No. 507923/13
"'In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for negligent treatment provided by
an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself [or herself]'" ( Fuessel v Chin , 179 AD3d 899, 901 , quoting Seiden v Sonstein , 127 AD3d 1158, 1160 ).
In addition, the evidence submitted by Wyckoff failed to demonstrate that the defendant Mahalingam Sivakumar was a private, independent physician for whose negligent acts it cannot be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior
-
M.D. Pennsylvania October 23, 2023 No. 1:18-cv-00856Not cited
As to the United States’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, the government argues that the complaint does not contain sufficient facts to support each element of a negligence claim and fails to assert how each relevant physician
working in those departments acted negligently.
and Kapadia, is denied to the extent the complaint alleges negligence by doctors Zheng and Lee, and is otherwise denied as moot.
-
E.D. Kentucky January 23, 2023 No. 5:22-cv-00089Not cited
Lake Cumberland considered whether patients had a cause of action against a hospital for negligent credentialing (a common variety of corporate negligence) of a non- employee physician who was given staff privileges by the hospital
However, the court noted, “a claim of negligence against a hospital for the selection of its physicians is derivative of the medical malpractice claim against the physician” and “[w]ithout proof that the doctor committed malpractice
The plaintiff’s corporate negligence theory against the hospital was based on allegations of negligent credentialing, failing to oversee and monitor the physicians’ performances, and failing to follow its own procedures.
-
New Mexico Court of Appeals July 26, 2023Not cited Unpublished
Thus, the regulations relied on by the Estate apply on their face to practitioners, such as physicians and physician assistants, not corporate entities, like Doctor on Call.
negligence of the prescribing physician.
Call based on Doctor on Call’s own negligence.
-
2022 Ohio 785, 186 N.E.3d 278 Ohio Court of Appeals March 16, 2022 No. C-210341
At issue is whether a health care employer can be vicariously liable for medical malpractice when the statute of repose bars the claim against the allegedly negligent physician-employee.
Likewise, this court has applied the holding in Wuerth to medical negligence cases when the allegedly negligent physician could not be found culpable for malpractice. See, e.g., Rush v.
C-090752, 2010-Ohio-3832 , ¶ 14 (dismissing claim against surgery center when statute of limitations expired against allegedly negligent physician); Wilson v. Durrani, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.
-
Washington Supreme Court April 11, 2024 No. 101,745-6Not cited
And yet the characterization of the hospital-doctor relationship has profound implications for a patient’s ability to recover against the hospital for negligent treatment.
the event of negligent doctor care.
Thus, we conclude that a hospital cannot escape liability for the negligent provision of emergency services by delegating that duty to its nonemployee doctors.
-
California Court of Appeal June 24, 2025 No. G063413Not cited Unpublished
But he concluded that the nursing facility and its staff had been negligent. Plaintiffs’ counsel later learned that another defendant’s experts asserted negligence by hospital doctors.
This prompted counsel to consult with a vascular surgeon, “who opined about the negligence of doctors during the first hospitalization.”
According to counsel’s declarations, after consulting a new expert who opined about negligence by doctors during the initial hospitalization, they believed Kadakia had been negligent, leading to the Doe amendment.
-
Texas Supreme Court May 23, 2025 No. 23-0460Not cited Dissent · Bland
The Court, however, decides today that a hospital should be liable for injuries that independent physicians cause, based on an allegation that the hospital failed to develop policies preventing physician negligence.
Instead, the report attempts to hold the hospital vicariously liable for the conduct of a physician the hospital does not employ, speculating that the hospital could have prevented the non-employee physician from making a negligent
If “lack of a policy” might be a reason a hospital could be liable for physician negligence, then every case of negligent misdiagnosis will be brought against the offending physician and the hospital.
-
2023 IL App (1st) 230078 Appellate Court of Illinois December 22, 2023 No. 1-23-0078
The patient sued the hospital and the physicians, alleging negligence. Id. at 1094 .
The clinic physicians acknowledged the misdiagnosis but denied -7- 1-23-0078 negligence. Id. at 1095 .
The hospital relied solely on the clinic physicians’ deposition testimony to establish the standard of care, arguing a jury could determine the clinic physicians were negligent in not diagnosing the misplaced catheter before operating
-
Indiana Court of Appeals November 9, 2023 No. 23A-CT-00345Not cited
We agree that the exclusivity provision of the WCA does not immunize a physician from claims for medical negligence arising from a doctor-patient relationship with the injured party, who is in the same employ as the physician
The physicians were salaried employees at the plant. Ross sued the physicians for damages based on alleged medical negligence that occurred during their treatment of him for a nonindustrial accident.
of its physicians.
-
D. Nevada October 10, 2024 No. 2:24-cv-00129Not cited
The 15 Commissioner also contends that the allegation that Plaintiff’s doctors were negligent is not a 16 basis for remand or reversal.
See e.g., 11 Osenbrock, 240 F.3d at 1164 n.1. 12 Plaintiff’s allegation that his doctors have been negligent also is not a proper basis for 13 remand or reversal.
This did not include whether Plaintiff’s doctors were 23 negligent, so this issue is not properly before this Court.
-
Vermont Superior Court October 31, 2024 No. 24-cv-467Not cited
Plaintiffs’ Allegations In the original complaint, Plaintiffs asserted claims for medical negligence against the individual physicians, professional negligence against the social worker, agency liability against the physician practices
and UVMMC, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the physicians and the social worker, medical battery against one of the physicians, negligence against the DCF Employees, civil conspiracy, and requests
Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Plaintiffs assert claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the physicians and against Rafuse.
-
S.D. Illinois May 12, 2022 No. 3:18-cv-01333Not cited
Jefferson has a lack of knowledge or to show her propensity to underperform, i.e., “once a negligent doctor, always a negligent doctor.”
Vandervelden avers such evidence should be admissible, not to prove propensity, but to show that the USA’s physicians negligently failed supervise and communicate with SLU’s resident medical doctors, including Dr. Khan and Dr.
Jefferson had the propensity to be a negligent doctor.
-
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania July 28, 2023 No. 7 WAP 2022Not cited
The trial court then entered a verdict against the Doctors and the Hospital, finding that the Doctors were negligent in their treatment of Ms.
See McLaughlin, 260 A.3d at 225 (“[DCI] then filed its answer, admitting that it executed employment agreements with [the Doctors] but denying that it employed those physicians at times material to [the Doctors’ negligent treatment
In the present case, the Hospital insists that it is liable for the Doctors’ negligence only by operation of law and that it did not contribute to the Doctors’ negligence.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.