to have been negligent, but the physician was not named as a respondent in the submission of controversy and was not otherwise joined as a party.

Most importantly, a finding of negligence by a panel is to be taken by the examining board as "conclusive evidence that the physician is guilty of negligence in treatment." Sec. 448.02 (3)(b), Stats.

Thereafter, according to its new terms, a "finding by a panel established under sec. 655.02 or by a court that a physician has acted negligently is conclusive evidence that the physician is guilty of negligence in treatment."

You next ask whether the physician is legally liable for the negligence of the optician in performing the acts of measurement and evaluation which you describe.

Hence, we believe a physician would be liable for the negligence of an optician acting under his directions pursuant to section 5.17. Of course, the optician may also be liable for his own negligence.

The physician must use a specific written authorization to direct the optician's work. The physician remains legally liable for the negligence of the optician in performing services under his direction.

Ycu next ask whether the physician is legally liable for the negligence of the opticim in perform@ the acts of measurement and evaluation which you describe.

You finally ask whether an optician who MS not been authorized by a physician to perform the actions yar list is liable for his own negligence in performing them.

The physician must uss a specific written authorization to direct the opt&en’s work. The physician remains legally liable for the negligence of the optician in performing services tmder hi direction.

As a practical matter, this rule would make it extremely difficult for a person to prove a claim of negligence against a physician who had provided a statement of medical exemption.

SUMMARY The law does not explicitly make physicians immune from liability for negligence in providing a person a statement of exemption from the mandatory seat belt law.

the patient with certain named tablets, which she proceeds to obtain from the container and measure out for the patient, delivering the same to the patient, there is no violation of sec. 151.04 (2) or sec. 151.07 (3) although the doctor

may be liable for his own negligence or the negligence of his employe in such case.

In any event the physician may not, except by complying with sec. 151.02 (9), either directly or indirectly through his employe engage in what amounts to a drug store business by the dispensing and sale of drugs to the general public

." 6 While a physician could be disciplined for professional incompetency, 7 the definition embraced only multiple instances of substandard patient care unless a single incident rose to the level of "gross negligence." 8 The audit

instances or a pattern of practice to develop." 10 The Board, with the assistance of the Kansas Medical Society, also pursued legislative changes through H.B. 2620. 11 Because of the Board's concern that it could not discipline a physician

for a single incident of substandard patient care not involving gross negligence, the above-referenced amendment was added to the Board's disciplinary authority.

May a physician legally extract blood from a non-consegting suspect at the request of a law enforcement officer7 3.

In absence of negligence, is a physician placed under possible civil liability by extracting blood from a non-consenting suspect at the re- quest of a law enforcement officer?

Thus, to the extent your question inquires as to licensed retired physicians, the statute above provides them immunity for civil damages resulting from ordinary negligence (but not for gross negligence or willful conduct), as long

If, however, liability insurance in a customary amount is maintained by the physician or provided by the nonprofit agency, any potential liability of the physician for ordinary negligence is limited to the amount of insurance available

employee, at the time damages were sustained, was acting in the discharge of his duties and within the scope of his office, employment, contract, or assignment and such damages did not result from the intentional wrongful act or gross negligence

In the case of a contract or assigned physician, gross negligence is an act or omission in gross deviation from the standard of care required to be proven under provisions of R.S. 9:2794 . 13:5108.2 (2) defines who is considered

Your counsel's letter refers to a Court of Appeals decision dealing with the question of State negligence for the acts of panel physicians of the Commission ( Rosensweig v State of New York, 5 N.Y.2d 404 [1959]).

The Court concluded that the doctors were not employees of the State whose negligence could be imputed to the State ( id., p 408).

Physicians and Surgeons sec. 54 (e), pp. 978-980, that although a physician is liable for the negligence of nurses in his employ he is not ordinarily liable for negligent acts of nurses who are not in his employ unless in the course

SUMMARY The law does not explicitly make physicians immune from liability for negligence In providing a person a statement of exemption from the manda- tosy seat belt law.

A licensed hospital is immune from vicarious liability for the negligence or omissions of a licensed physician covered by the health care stabilization fund, if the physician is not an employee or agent of the hospital.

See V.T.C.S. art. 4552-5.13(d) (employment of optometrist by physician); Attorney General Opinion MW-318 (1981), however, made some general observations which might prove helpful: The liability of a physician for the negligence of

Does sec. 343.305 (5) (a) (b) apply generally as to provide immunity to physicians and employes of hospitals acting at the direction of a physician for any civil or criminal liability for *Page 179 negligence in the actual performance

other words, does sec. 343.305 (5) (b) apply to the demand for the taking of a blood sample by a non-consenting suspect, if that procedure can be followed apart from the Implied Consent Law to obtain evidence to support a charge of negligent

Section 343.305 (5) (b), Stats., reads: "No physician, or other person acting under the directions of a physician, withdrawing blood for the purpose of determining its alcoholic content, nor the employer of anyone withdrawing blood

In our opinion, the supervising physician may have legal liability for the acts of these persons. The liability of a physician for the negligence of others is determined by examining the principles of agency law. Sparger v.

Section 44-2828 apparently was intended to cover actions where the physician or hospital is qualified under the Nebraska Hospital Medical Liability Act while § 25-222 covers other professional negligence situations.

In our opinion, the supervising physician may have legal 1iabBity for the acts of these persons. The Bability of a physician for the negligence of others is determined by examining the principle of agency law. Spaxer v.

time the services were rendered, shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions performed in good faith as long as any act or omission resulting from the rendering of emergency assistance or services was not grossly negligent

(b) Any person who is not a physician, surgeon, nurse, or other person trained or skilled in the treatment of medical emergencies who is present at an emergency or accident scene, and who: (1) Believes that the life, health, and safety

Davie held that the University was not liable for the negligence of a physician performing surgery at its hospital under the law then applicable. (Id., at p. 700.)