-
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.
-
143 So. 251 Supreme Court of Florida August 2, 1932
and instruction of the physician or hospital throughout the treatment, and a poor result is obtained, or increased damages inflicted, because of the negligence of the physician or hospital, the negligence of the one who caused the
would have produced, or negligently aggravated the extent of the injury, the rule does apply.
of the original wrongdoer and a physician or hospital which *306 aggravates the injury, and no distinctly new injury is shown as the result of the negligence of the physician or hospital, such release covers and includes the injured
-
953 So. 2d 461 Supreme Court of Florida February 15, 2007 No. SC04-393
Neri, alleging, inter alia, that the doctor had acted negligently in his treatment of Elizabeth and that Carnival should be held vicariously liable for such negligence under theories of agency and apparent agency, and that Carnival
If the carrier breaches its duty, it is responsible for its own negligence. If the doctor is negligent in treating a passenger, however, that negligence will not be imputed to the carrier. Id. at 1369 (emphasis added).
One case involved a railroad's liability for the negligence of its physician, Secord v. St. Paul Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry.
-
671 So. 2d 149 Supreme Court of Florida January 18, 1996 No. 84413
in a medical negligence action in order for the physician to defend herself.
Other decisions have held the medical negligence exception does away with the patient-physician privilege completely in medical negligence actions, thereby permitting any physicians who have seen or treated the claimant to freely disclose
a physician who "is or reasonably expects to be named as a defendant" in a medical negligence action.
-
351 So. 2d 703 Supreme Court of Florida July 28, 1977 No. 46553
This case concerns the right of a defendant who is the negligent tortfeasor in an automobile accident to bring a third party complaint against the treating physician of the plaintiff for alleged malpractice which aggravated the injuries
or surgeon, and in following his advice and instructions, and his injuries are thereafter aggravated or increased by the negligence, mistake, or lack of skill of such physician or surgeon, the law regards the negligence of the wrongdoer
The issue in this case is whether the negligent driver in an automobile accident who causes injury to the plaintiff may bring a third party indemnity action against the physician for damages directly attributed to the physician's malpractice
-
8 So. 2d 37 Supreme Court of Florida May 8, 1942
It was iterated that the electrical current was "negligently applied . . . under the negligent and careless personal supervision and direction of the said [physician] . . .," and that the treatment lasted continuously for twenty minutes
The physician failed to make the standard check and the patient lost his vision and charged the physician with negligent treatment.
And it has been justly held that where a physician negligently left, a sponge in the abdomen after an operation though the evidence showed that other capable physicians sometimes did the same thing, that the trial court properly submitted
-
689 So. 2d 1197 District Court of Appeal of Florida March 12, 1997 No. 96-0760
The Third Party Complaint alleges the doctors' negligent treatment of Ruth Gorin's foot, which allowed the injury to become fatal.
The initial tortfeasor is simply trying to recoup his losses that in fairness should be shared with a negligent doctor.
Hwang was a treating physician; that Mrs. Gorin died as a result of Dr. Hwang's negligence; that Benchwarmers completely settled with the estate for the full extent of Mrs. Gorin's injuries, on its own behalf and on behalf of Dr.
-
274 So. 3d 407 District Court of Appeal of Florida June 12, 2019 No. 18-0830
The patient’s sole claim against the doctor was for medical negligence. The doctor asserted an affirmative defense of informed consent.
Over objection, the trial court instructed the jury as to both general negligence and informed consent. The jury found the doctor negligent, and the patient was awarded $15,591,619.00 in damages. This appeal followed.
The informed consent instruction contributed to the jury’s finding the doctor negligent because it allowed the jury to find the doctor negligent even if the jury found that the doctor’s decision not to administer Cytoxan fell within
-
543 So. 2d 209 Supreme Court of Florida April 20, 1989 No. 72322
That opinion noted that no decision exists recognizing the tort of negligent selection of a financially incompetent physician but recognized that a new principle had been evolving that allowed a claim for negligence in the selection
of medically incompetent physicians under the doctrine of corporate negligence.
Moreover, the hospital will only be responsible for the negligence of an independent physician when it has failed to exercise due care in the selection and retention of that physician on its staff.
-
5 So. 3d 726 District Court of Appeal of Florida February 19, 2009 No. 1D07-6539
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to consider the alleged negligence of the FBOR physicians depends on whether their alleged negligence was necessary to an accurate determination of StarMed’s pro rata share of the “entire liability
The trial court was persuaded by UMC’s arguments that the FBOR physicians’ negligence was irrelevant to the contribution claim because none of the dollars UMC paid in settlement represented the physicians’ liability.
Wilkinson suffered one injury, which resulted from the culmination of the negligence of various caregivers, physician and non-physician alike. Thus, in apportioning fault among all of the tortfeasors who contributed to Mrs.
-
789 So. 2d 1069 District Court of Appeal of Florida June 13, 2001 No. 4D00-3463
Mekras, 679 So.2d 278 (Fla.1996) the reverse situation was presented, in which the plaintiff gave notice to the negligent physician, but not to the employer of the negligent physician.
-
89 So. 2d 13 Supreme Court of Florida July 31, 1956
The question here narrows down to whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, upon the breaking of the instrument, to make a prima facie case of negligence against the doctor.
Thornton, 125 Fla. 699 , 170 So. 459, 461 , this Court said, "In the decision dated August 10, 1933, we held in effect that, in an action for damages resulting from an injury caused by negligent treatment of a patient by a doctor,
The defect was a latent one, and in the absence of a showing of specific negligence of the doctor with reference to it, the holding was clear that res ipsa loquitur was not applicable.
-
911 So. 2d 277 District Court of Appeal of Florida September 30, 2005 No. 2D04-3002
The Estate did not sue any of the treating physicians for medical negligence. The Respondents filed a "Motion For Order Authorizing Ex Parte Communications With Former Treating Physicians and Health Care Providers."
The medical negligence exception allows a physician to disclose patient information "to attorneys, experts, and other individuals necessary to defend the physician in a medical negligence action in which the physician is or expects
The medical negligence exception permits disclosure only "by a physician who `is or reasonably expects to be named as a defendant' in a medical negligence action." Acosta, 671 So.2d at 156 (quoting § 455.241(2), Fla.
-
649 So. 2d 357 District Court of Appeal of Florida February 9, 1995 No. 94-2524
The issue is whether a hospital charged with liability for the negligence of a physician alleged to be an agent of the hospital may conduct ex parte interviews with that physician without admitting before trial that the physician was
The plaintiff alleged that AGH should be held vicariously liable for their negligent acts and omissions based on an employment or agency relationship between the physicians and the hospital.
The fact that petitioner denied in its answer any employment, agency, or joint venture relationship with the physicians in question should not preclude it from speaking with doctors who are alleged to have committed negligent acts
-
178 So. 2d 135 District Court of Appeal of Florida August 3, 1965 Nos. 64-595, 64-596
Talcott, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 412 , involving the same doctor. The affidavit did not connect the cause of death to any specific negligence charged to the doctor.
The other ground recited in the opinion, that the affidavit did not connect the cause of death to any specific negligence charged to the doctor, relates to the portion of the affidavit in which the doctor stated that the listed acts
and omissions of the defendant doctor which he had characterized as negligence (combined with negligence of others), proximately caused the death.
-
939 So. 2d 185 District Court of Appeal of Florida October 6, 2006 No. 5D04-3284
of independent contractor physicians.
If the physician is negligent, it reasons, Winter Park Hospital cannot be liable.
The University was unable to escape liability for the negligence of the negligent physician because delegating performance of its contract to the physician did not discharge its contractual duty.
-
693 So. 2d 1055 District Court of Appeal of Florida May 14, 1997 No. 96-0073
Goldschmidt involves a medical malpractice action in which the plaintiff sought to hold one doctor responsible for the negligence of another doctor who was "covering" for him.
First the supreme court held that it was necessary to plead agency to hold the original doctor liable for the negligence of the covering doctor.
Although there was expert opinion evidence in the record that the covering doctor was negligent, the court held that "there was no evidentiary question in this case for the jury to resolve." 571 So.2d at 424 .
-
864 So. 2d 1 District Court of Appeal of Florida February 4, 2004 No. 3D01-1518
Neri, alleging, inter alia, that the doctor had acted negligently in his treatment of Elizabeth and that Carnival should be held vicariously liable for such negligence under theories of agency and apparent agency, and that Carnival
If the carrier breaches its duty, it is responsible for its own negligence. If the doctor is negligent in treating a passenger, however, that negligence will not be imputed to the carrier.
So, too, should it be liable for the negligent treatment of a passenger by a physician or nurse in the normal scope of their employment, as members of the ship's company, subject to the orders and commands of the master.
-
33 So. 3d 117 District Court of Appeal of Florida April 28, 2010 No. 4D08-4293
following his advice and instructions his injuries are aggravated or increased by the negligence, mistake or lack of skill of such physician, the law regards the negligence of the wrongdoer in causing the original injury.
his advice and instructions, and his *121 injuries are thereafter aggravated or increased by the negligence, mistake, or lack of skill of such physician or surgeon, the law regards the negligence of the wrongdoer in causing the original
In that case, which also arose from a car accident, the defendants filed a third-party complaint against the treating physician, alleging that negligent treatment had caused all or part of the plaintiffs injuries. Id. at 704 .
-
85 So. 3d 502 District Court of Appeal of Florida February 22, 2012 No. 4D09-3610
We remanded the case with directions to the trial court to allow the plaintiff to file a third amended complaint specifically identifying the physicians and other employees or agents of the hospital for whose negligence the hospital
The general rule is that a hospital is not liable for the negligent acts of a physician who is not its employee, but an independent contractor. See Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinic, Inc. v.
The plaintiff also alleged that the hospital was responsible for the negligence of several other physicians, but those allegations are not relevant to this appeal. . The plaintiff has not challenged this ruling on appeal. .
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.