-
808 N.E.2d 1078 Appellate Court of Illinois March 31, 2004 Nos. 1-02-2513, 1-02-2867 cons.
In counts XX and XXI, plaintiff alleged medical negligence against Doctor Williams.
To permit a physician on its staff whom the hospital knows or should have known is unqualified or negligent is a breach of the hospital’s duty of due care to its patients.
Counts XX and XXI also allege that beginning on February 1, 1999, Doctor Williams was negligent in her capacity as the decedent’s treating physician. A.
-
609 N.E.2d 321 Illinois Supreme Court February 25, 1993 No. 73263
We point out that once treatment by the negligent physician is discontinued, the statute of repose begins to run, regardless of whether or not the patient is aware of the negligence at termination of treatment.
CARLE CLINIC We now turn to the issue of whether the tort of continuing negligent treatment applies to a multispecialty clinic when several doctors negligently treat a patient for a specific problem over a finite time span.
Therefore, plaintiff now claims that not only is Carle vicariously liable for the negligent actions of its doctors, but that Carle Clinic, as an entity, negligently treated her condition.
-
513 N.E.2d 387 Illinois Supreme Court October 5, 1987 Nos. 62700, 62701, 62702, 62703, 62704 cons.Cited by 349 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Simon
The cause of action against the doctors presents neither the problems inherent in upholding the negligence count against the hospital nor the complex policy considerations involved in extending the boundaries of the tort of medical
The majority’s view that the .plaintiff here was too remote to fall within the scope of the doctors’ duty of care (117 Ill. 2d at 530) is overly narrow under any modern theory of negligence.
’ conduct negligent.
-
622 N.E.2d 788 Illinois Supreme Court October 21, 1993 No. 74319
, if any, of the physicians.”
The realities of modern hospital care raise a serious question regarding the responsibility of a hospital when a physician who is an independent contractor renders negligent health care.
Apparent Authority We now discuss the theory under which a hospital may be held vicariously liable, in a proper case, for the negligence of independent-contractor physicians.
-
595 N.E.2d 153 Appellate Court of Illinois June 5, 1992 No. 1-91-2775
based upon negligent selection and negligent control of the physician; and (3) corporate negligence based upon the corporation’s independent acts of negligence, e.g., in the management of utilization control systems.
This issue turns on the question of whether plaintiffs were able to show the necessary nexus between HMOI and the doctors charged with negligence.
doctor.
-
2011 IL 108182 Illinois Supreme Court June 16, 2011 No. 108182
IPI Civil (2006) No. 105.01 provides: “105.01 Professional Negligence–Duty ‘Professional negligence’ by a _____________________ [specialist/doctor/nurse/therapist/health care provider/accountant/lawyer/other] is the failure to
emergency room doctors) and an institutional negligence claim (the alleged failure to assure adequate communication between its doctors)
In addition to their professional negligence claim, which asserted that Sherman Hospital should be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the emergency doctors who failed to diagnose Mrs.
-
2012 IL 112898, 981 N.E.2d 971 Illinois Supreme Court December 13, 2012 No. 112898
Without the underlying cause of action for negligence against the doctors, plaintiffs would have no legal claim against the hospital.
Rather, plaintiffs claim that the hospital is liable for the doctors’ negligence due exclusively to the hospital’s role as principal.
Plaintiffs have one claim or cause of action against the hospital, i.e., negligence based upon the hospital’s responsibility for the allegedly negligent acts of the defendant doctors.
-
262 Ill. App. 3d 503 Appellate Court of Illinois May 31, 1994 No. 3—93—0260
Additional counts allege negligent medical treatment by the various physicians who examined and treated Rosemarie at Silver Cross.
, not hospital administration, and that any negligence on the part of the physicians cannot be imputed to the hospital.
The first district has held that a hospital is vicariously liable for the negligence of a physician who is the apparent agent of the hospital. Northern Trust Co. v. St. Francis Hospital (1988), 168 Ill.
-
771 N.E.2d 1067 Appellate Court of Illinois June 3, 2002 No. 1-01-1227
Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. 2d 511 , 622 N.E.2d 788 (1993), adopted the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s standards for finding that an allegedly negligent doctor acted as a hospital’s apparent agent.
The court explained the statement in Pamperin about the patient who seeks care from a personal physician with hospital admitting privileges: if the plaintiff claims that her personal physician acted negligently, and she chose the physician
But the hospital might remain responsible for the alleged negligence of doctors the personal physician consulted, if the hospital held out the consulted specialists as its apparent agents.
-
194 Ill. App. 308 Appellate Court of Illinois June 17, 1915 No. Gen. No. 20,213
Physicians and surgeons, § 19 * —when death of patient does not create presumption of negligence or lack of skill.
The fact that a patient dies under the treatment of a physician does not raise a presumption of negligence or lack of skill on his part. 3.
Physicians and surgeons, § 22 * -—when evidence not sufficient to show negligence or want of skill.
-
640 N.E.2d 948 Appellate Court of Illinois September 2, 1994 No. 2-93-0312
The first district stated that physicians were liable if (1) plaintiffs showed that physician negligence increased the risk of harm to a person in plaintiffs’ position, (2) plaintiffs proved they suffered the harm, and (3) the jury
We hold that plaintiffs in medical negligence actions must prove that their injuries were proximately caused by physician negligence.
Physicians are not liable if plaintiffs only prove that negligence was a substantial factor in causing their injuries.
-
637 N.E.2d 427 Appellate Court of Illinois July 11, 1994 No. 3-93-0260
Additional counts allege negligent medical treatment by the various physicians who examined and treated Rosemarie at Silver Cross.
surgeon, not hospital administration, and that any negligence on the part of the physicians cannot be imputed to the hospital.
The First District has held that a hospital is vicariously liable for the negligence of a physician who is the apparent agent of the hospital. Northern Trust Co. v. St.
-
664 N.E.2d 197 Appellate Court of Illinois March 29, 1996 No. 1-93-4283Cited by 17 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Greiman
Wolf (1) has been misdiagnosed for cancer in its earlier stages, (2) discovers the misdiagnoses, (3) fails to bring an action against the negligent doctor, (4) then discovers, before the running of the initial limitations period, that
there is a cancerous metastasis linked to the earlier cancer and (5) brings an action against all of the other medical providers before the end of that limitations period but fails to join the negligent doctor until after the expiration
Her deposition does not reveal any notion that she believed all was well after the first operation or that she was unaware of the doctors’ negligence.
-
407 N.E.2d 1067 Appellate Court of Illinois July 9, 1980 No. 79-116
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant physicians were negligent in failing to come to the mother’s aid at the hospital until just prior to surgery, though the doctors were apprised of her situation by telephone by the nurses monitoring
DeVivo would not find defendant doctors negligent on the basis of that delay, and that plaintiff presented no expert witness who would do so. We find no triable issue here.
was negligent.
-
398 N.E.2d 611 Appellate Court of Illinois December 7, 1979 No. 78-130
On the other hand, Canfield and Bazuin have been charged for the damages caused by the negligence, if any, of the hospital and doctors (third-party defendants).
Thus, because the law makes each person liable for the foreseeable results of his negligence, it is logical that both the original tortfeasor and the negligent doctors are liable at law for the negligent acts of subsequent malpracticing
doctors.
-
455 N.E.2d 1096 Appellate Court of Illinois November 3, 1983 No. 4-82-0797
Metz sued Fairbury Hospital and the two doctors that had treated him there, Kothari and Secoquian, for negligence.
The Carle doctors do not dispute that Metz’ problem was incorrectly diagnosed, but they deny that they were negligent.
Fairbury Hospital argues on appeal that no expert testimony was needed for the jury to determine that the Carle doctors were negligent in misdiagnosing Metz’ condition and, alternatively, that the testimony of Dr.
-
631 N.E.2d 809 Appellate Court of Illinois March 18, 1994 No. 4-93-0569
The court concluded the act of one physician covering for another does not create an ostensible or apparent agency. Physicians are sometimes held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of other physicians.
A physician who employs another physician may be held vicariously liable for the physician-employee’s negligent acts committed while acting in the scope of employment, despite the argument that the physician-employee is an independent
The Kavanaugh court noted that doctors remain answerable for their own fault, for example, "for negligence in their designation of covering doctors, or for their own joint participation with them in diagnosis or treatment or — as in
-
562 N.E.2d 257 Appellate Court of Illinois September 28, 1990 No. 1-89-0566Cited by 19 Dissent · Jiganti
The Corletts signed the release after the alleged negligence of the doctor occurred. For purposes of our review, we must accept that the defendant was negligent. Purtill v. Hess (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 229 , 489 N.E.2d 867 .
The majority concludes the issue by stating that where the doctor is negligent and the patient exercises his religious right to refuse reasonable medical procedures, the patient’s estate must bear a proportionate share of the tort
I am concerned about the statements of the court that I have related to the extent that they say that in all situations where a doctor is negligent, an injured patient must recover, albeit on a reduced basis.
-
2012 IL App (1st) 101558 Appellate Court of Illinois March 22, 2012 No. 1-10-1558
James can be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of Lamb’s treating physician. For the reasons explained herein, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
James and whether the hospital can be held vicariously liable for Doctor Burke’s negligent treatment of Lamb. Specifically, plaintiff argues that Doctor Burke “was inextricably linked and connected with St.
James vicariously liable solely on the basis of the purportedly negligent treatment provided by Doctor Burke.
-
302 N.E.2d 40 Illinois Supreme Court September 25, 1973 No. 45200Cited by 85 Concurrence · Underwood
It seems to me of more than passing importance to denominate with precision the relationship between an original ‘tortfeasor and a subsequently negligent physician, in determining their respective rights.
is, however, an established category into which this cause of action readily fits, and I believe the law to be better stated as allowing the initial tortfeasor to become subrogated to the rights of the injured party as against the physician
, who negligently exacerbates injuries following the original harm.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.