-
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.
-
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
-
249 P.2d 8 California Supreme Court October 24, 1952 No. S. F. 18614
That ease not only directly held that an action lies in the civil courts against an attending physician by an employee injured by reason of the negligence of the insurance doctor in attending an industrial injury, but also suggested
“It is equally clear, of course, that, if an employee of a doctor goes to that doctor for treatment of a nonindustrial injury, and the doctor is guilty of negligence, the employee may sue his employer for malpractice.
Had he sent [ ] [plaintiff] to the insurance doctor and had that doctor been negligent in treating the industrial injury, that doctor would have been liable for malpractice.
-
503 P.2d 1366 California Supreme Court December 22, 1972 No. L.A. 30024
of the doctors’ negligence.
Indeed it shows that in addition to claiming negligence on the part of the three doctors, plaintiff asserted that defendant corporation, independently of the conduct of the doctors, was negligent in the procedures established by it
It alleges in substance that defendants, including the corporate defendant as well as the doctors, negligently performed the physical examination.
-
277 P.2d 444 California Court of Appeal December 13, 1954 No. Civ. 16046
But if the jury found (in view of the evidence this seems highly unlikely) that appellant was not guilty of any independent negligence but that the doctors were negligent, then appellant could be held liable for the doctors’ negligence
It seems to be the general rule that an employer who undertakes gratuitously to furnish medical attention to his employees is liable only if he is negligent in the selection of the physician, and is not liable for the negligence of
Consequently, it is further held that the company is liable for the negligent acts of the physicians employed.”
-
980 P.2d 895 California Supreme Court August 5, 1999 No. S073975
The doctors attempt to distinguish Anson on the ground that it involved a negligence action against the governmental entity that employed the negligent physicians and was therefore "based upon" the health care provider's negligence
An indemnity action which involves multiple tortfeasors and requires the apportionment of fault between a negligent actor and a physician who treats the injuries flowing from that negligence is unlikely to be resolved in 90 days.
"Moreover, it will be a rare situation in which the party injured by medical malpractice will not file a direct claim against a negligent physician.
-
135 P.2d 29 California Court of Appeal March 16, 1943 No. Civ. 3040
Paragraph five alleges other standards of good practice of dentists in Kern County; that Doctor Samuel Smith was negligent in failing to follow them; and that Wanda Kraft was damaged by such alleged negligence of Doctor Samuel Smith
Paragraph three alleges certain standards of good practice of physicians and surgeons in Los Angeles County; that Doctor- Innis was negligent in failing to conform to those standards in the treatment of Wanda Kraft.
It seems to be true that each of the three doctors is accused of a separate tort and that there is no allegation of concurrent negligence, at least between the two Doctors Smith and Doctor Innis.
-
297 P.2d 728 California Court of Appeal May 23, 1956 Nos. Civ. 21344, 21282
The sixth count is also a duplicate of the third, except that the defendant Koff is named as the negligent physician.
The seventh count is also a duplicate of the third, except that *743 Scharles is named as the negligent physician.
doctors.
-
234 P.2d 34 California Supreme Court June 29, 1951 No. L. A. 21416
“Negligence on the part of a physician or surgeon will not be presumed; it must be affirmatively proved.” (Engelking v. Carlson, supra, 13 Cal.2d 216, 221 ; Lashley v. Koerber, supra, 26 Cal.2d 83, 89 .)
Finally, in disposition of plaintiff’s charge of malpractice against defendant doctor, there remain two other points for consideration: (1) Plaintiff claims that the doctor was negligent in failing to give complete and proper instructions
As the record has been above reviewed with regard to the alleged malpractice claim against defendant doctor, it is manifest that plaintiff has failed to prove that the doctor was negligent or unskilful in his diagnosis and adoption
-
45 Cal. App. 4th 1780 California Court of Appeal June 3, 1996 No. B087739
Hospital argued that it was entitled to now litigate Doctor Sedgwick’s alleged negligence since it had no prior opportunity to do so.
It points to two issues of material fact: 1) Doctor Sedgwick’s negligence may have been a legal cause of Hospital’s economic damages (the $2.5 million settlement) and 2) Doctor Sedgwick may be comparatively negligent.
Valerie, like Hospital here, sought to prove that Doctor Sedgwick negligently treated her and that negligence caused her injury.
-
582 P.2d 946 California Supreme Court August 21, 1978 No. L.A. 30914
(See fn. 3, ante. ) Former BAJI No. 6.28 relieved a negligent physician of malpractice liability for any injury resulting, in whole or in part, from a patient's negligent failure to follow a doctor's reasonable directions concerning
A doctor is not liable for any injury proximately resulting from the negligent failure of the patient to do so.
"A doctor is not liable for any injury resulting solely from the negligent failure of the patient to follow such advice and instructions.
-
166 P.2d 857 California Supreme Court March 14, 1946 No. L. A. 19477
It has been settled by decisions in tort actions that the aggravation of injuries by the negligence of a doctor is within the scope of the risk created by the original tortious act. (Ash v.
or carelessness of the employer’s selected physician.’
or carelessness of the employer’s selected physician.”
-
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
-
183 P.2d 658 California Supreme Court July 31, 1947 No. L. A. 20067
In the course of medical treatment for the injury, plaintiff sustained X-ray burns through the negligence of the attending physicians, and the ultimate result was amputation of the finger.
or carelessness of the employer’s selected physician.”
Here plaintiff urges that the insurance carrier failed to bring an independent action to recover from the negligent doctors its "expenditures for compensation” by reason of the malpractice but simply filed notice of its claim of lien
-
705 P.2d 886 California Supreme Court September 26, 1985 No. L.A. 31922Cited by 145 Dissent · Bird
*906 It is arguable that plaintiff received notice of the negligent cause of her injury when Dr. Perez told her in February of 1979 that the doctors had performed “too much” surgery.
Thus, the physician need not disclose his or her negligence in order to avoid the possibility that a suit will be filed many years after the alleged injury.
Therefore, the one-year discovery limitations period no longer provides the physician with any incentive to disclose his or her negligence.
-
122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 233 California Court of Appeal July 12, 2002 No. E028795
Plaintiff argues that there was sufficient evidence that the negligent physician was the ostensible agent of respondent to survive the motion for a nonsuit.
National Trend For the last century, courts throughout the country have struggled with the issue of whether hospitals are liable for the negligence of physicians.
In light of this modem reality, the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions employed ostensible or apparent agency to impose liability on hospitals for the negligence of independent contractor physicians.
-
204 P. 403 California Court of Appeal December 22, 1921 No. Civ. No. 3760.
Counsel for appellant claims that the evidence was not such as to justify the jury in determining that the physicians were negligent, or that either of them was negligent, in the premises.
This brings us to the final question, which i.s whether or not the defendant, after using due care in the selection of a physician, is liable for his negligence.
Upon the *741 record here presented1, we are of the opinion that the hospitals of the defendant were not charitable institutions and that the defendant is responsible for. the negligence of the physician employed by it.
-
196 Cal. App. 3d 637 California Court of Appeal November 24, 1987 No. B009799
Applicability of the Statute to Actions Brought Against Hospital Facilities Rather Than Physicians Plaintiff also argues that section 1799.110 does not apply where, as here, only the hospital and not the allegedly negligent physician
Plaintiff reads this as limiting the scope of the section to (1) an “action . . . against a physician” “involving a claim of negligence,” rather than (2) an “action . . . involving a claim of negligence against a physician.
While not a model of clarity, subdivision (c) appears to refer to actions for damages which involve a claim of negligence against a physician or, in other words, actions which arise from a claim that a physician was negligent in providing
-
321 P.2d 831 California Court of Appeal February 21, 1958 No. Civ. 22605
Plaintiff has called our attention to the line of cases which have permitted an employee injured in an industrial accident to recover damages in a civil suit against the attending physician whose negligence has aggravated the original
The employer’s insurance carrier is held responsible in workmen’s compensation for the negligence of the doctor since that negligence is one of the foreseeable consequences of the original industrial injury. (Heaton v.
Shane, supra, it was held that an employee injured in an industrial accident could maintain a civil action for damages against the doctor whose negligent treatment aggravated the injury, even though the doctor who treated the employee
-
141 Cal. App. 3d 420 California Court of Appeal March 28, 1983 No. Civ. 66464
He bases this argument on a line of cases holding the party whose negligence originally caused a physical injury liable for the subsequent negligence of a doctor who aggravates that physical injury. In Ash v.
of [a] 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.”
Herrero cross-complained against the doctors for indemnity alleging that his liability for wrongful death attached only by reason of the doctors’ negligence in performing the surgery. (See Ash v.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.