An unsuccessful outcome does not, by itself, mean that a physician was negligent. An exercise of judgment that results in an unsuccessful outcome does not, by itself, mean that a physician was negligent.

An unsuccessful outcome does not, by itself, mean that a physician was negligent. The Days' counsel objected to Dr.

Harbert, 738 N.W.2d 510, 526-27 (S.D.2007) (opining that an instruction that stated that a physician was not necessarily negligent because the physician erred in judgment should not be given in ordinary negligence cases, but acknowledging

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.

; and (2) DHHA is liable for the negligent acts of its non-physician employees.

The physicians involved here were not DHHA employees. Thus, DHHA did not hire them, much less hire them negligently.

Negligent Acts of Non-Physician Employees Ms. Villalpando also contends Colorado law permits her claim against DHHA *365 for negligence committed by non-physician employees. The trial court dismissed this claim based on Ms.

Plaintiffs here did not allege that Kaiser itself was actively negligent in selecting the physicians who were to render services *817 to plaintiff.

Before one physician may be held responsible for the negligence of another physician, as contemplated by this jury instruction, it must be shown that the other physician was negligent.

Here, plaintiffs failed to eliminate sufficiently causes other than the alleged negligence of the individual physicians.

Brochner until March or April, 1967, at which time he was informed of the true facts by “competent” doctors. The amended complaint, in which Dr.

In situations where the defendant physician has concealed his negligence the cause of action does not accrue until the patient discovers the negligence, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered it.

the doctor.

Plaintiffs commenced this proceeding against physicians who had provided care and treatment to their child, contending that the physicians' negligence caused certain injuries.

Section _ 12-36-134(1)(g)(D), Hence, the statute recognizes that vicarious liability claims may be asserted against the corporation for the negligence of its physician employees.

Mercy Hospital, supra, the supreme court held that hospitals employing physicians to provide medical services cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of those physicians because hospitals have no legal right to control

We affirm the court of appeals, both in its holding that a plaintiff need not confront a doctor with discovered negligence and then be misled by that doctor in order to qualify for the knowing concealment exception to the statute of

However, the pertinent issue in the case was whether the doctor had an opportunity to conceal his negligence knowingly from the plaintiff and not whether the plaintiff had confronted the doctor with her suspicions of negligence.

Rarely will a plaintiff be able to produce direct evidence that a doctor knowingly concealed Ms negligence.

Community Hospital Ass'n, our supreme court held that a doctor who left instructions for tetracycline injections could not be held vicariously liable for the conduct of the nurse who negligently administered them because the physician

Serota, 852 P.2d 1292, 1296 (Colo.App.1992) (surgeon in charge may be liable for the negligence of other physicians by virtue of selection and supervision). In Young v.

Gee, Annotation, Vicarious Liability of Physician for Negligence of Another, 38 Am.Jur.

Linda Brown brought suit against doctors Rosenbloom and Province to recover damages for their alleged negligence. The doctors filed supporting affidavits with motions for summary judgment.

Brown sustained numerous and serious *85 injuries from the assault, allegedly the direct result of the negligence of the examining doctors.

The doctors denied all negligence. They further affirmatively assert that having acted in good faith under a court order as a medical commission, they are immune from civil liability because of section 27-9-122, C.R.S. 1973.

If no standard is established by the testimony of physicians, there is no standard for the determination of the ultimate question of the physician's negligence. See McGraw v. Kerr, 23 Colo.App. *771 163, 128 P. 870 ; Norkett v.

The court held that the fact that the injured limb was defective after treatment was not evidence of negligence on the part of the physician and that res ipsa loquitur did not apply.

The rule that proof of a bad or lamentable result is not of itself evidence of negligent treatment by a physician has been followed in subsequent cases. Brown v. Hughes, supra ; Schlesselman v.

Under such circumstances, the initial physician is responsible “for the negligent manner in which a [subsequent] physician or surgeon treats the case or 11 diagnoses the injuries or performs an operation.”

operation of the [physician’s] negligence that it alone, without any contributing negligence by the [physician] in the slightest degree, causes the injury.”

Ct. 1986) (“We see no reason why the rule should not apply to physicians whose original negligence causes the intervention of a second physician who either improperly diagnoses the case and performs an unnecessary operation or

The trial court dismissed the case against the professional corporation on the grounds that under the corporate practice of medicine doctrine, a corporation may not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a doctor.

The court of appeals reversed, holding that section 12-36-134 authorizes professional corporations to practice medicine and likewise be liable for the negligence of their physician employees.

The plaintiffs allege that the doctors' negligent treatment of Michael's birth defect caused Michael to change from an incomplete paraplegic to a quadriplegic with some use of his upper extremities. Dr.

This action was initially filed as a medical negligence claim against a physician who treated plaintiff Carol Kauntz.

Following discovery, plaintiffs amended their complaint to include a claim for negligent credentialing against NSMC, asserting that NSMC was negligent in granting the physician privileges to perform epidural procedures because his

While patients may not sue hospitals under these cireumstances, they nevertheless retain the right to sue negligent physicians personally.

Wright occupied the dual capacity of co-employee and physician and that Wright remained liable to Cobb for any negligence committed within the scope of the doctor-patient relationship. Dr.

Most importantly, co-employee immunity removes almost all deterrence to negligence by the company physician, who, alone among doctors, would be invulnerable to malpractice actions.

Mercy Hospital, 150 Colo. 430 , 373 P.2d 944 (1962), which held that a hospital could not be found liable for the negligence of a staff doctor which it employed.

Under this statutory scheme, actions alleging negligence by a physician must be commenced within two years of the date the plaintiff discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury.

In balancing the need to permit patients to recover losses from injuries caused by negligent conduct of their physicians against the need of physicians to practice medicine without fear of becoming defendants in suits alleging conduct

Most medical negligence cases specifically rejecting theories of continuous treatment involve a single, allegedly negligent act with no further contact between the physician and patient. See, e.g., Doyle v.

An unsuccessful outcome does not, by itself, mean that a physician was negligent. An exercise of judgment that results in an unsuccessful outcome does not, by itself, mean that a physician was negligent.

Imatani, 724 P.2d 89, 91 (Colo.App.1986) (“The mere fact of a bad or lamentable result is not prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the treating physician.”): Holmes v.

Koslow, a medical malpractice action, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to instruct the jury that the existence of an injury does not necessarily mean a doctor acted negligently.

Daly alleges that, during this follow-up visit, the doctor negligently dispensed medication, causing her to suffer a stroke. Daly filed suit against the doctor and ACWH in Pitkin County.

Moreover, even if the doctor were a nonservant agent, ACWH could not be held liable because Daly is claiming a negligent physical tort.

Hodson, Annotation, Liability of Hospital or Sanitarium for Negligence of Physician or Surgeon, 51 A.L.R.4th 235 , § 10(a) (1987-2005).).

of the doctor.

Plaintiffs first assert that the hospital itself acted negligently by allowing the doctor to perform this operation without an assistant surgeon because the standard of care in Colorado in 1977 required the presence of an assistant

Denver, 702 P.2d 1349 , (Colo.App.1984) (negligence of resident, non-licensed physicians is not imputable to hospital or City under doctrine of re-spondeat superior).

Otteman, supra, a division of this court discussed the basis upon and circumstances under which a physician may be held liable for the negligence of another physician.

Kinton, supra, the division went on to state that when several physicians act in concert or are jointly employed, each might be held responsible for the negligent conduct of any or all of the others.

is legally responsible to the patient for any negligence of any of the other physicians arising out of and within the seope of their agreement to treat or care for that injury or condition.