Subsequently the parents sued the doctor alleging negligence in the sterilization procedure and the post-operative treatment.

The majority opinion states that "the parents sued the doctor alleging negligence in the sterilization procedure."

Viewed simply as a negligence case, we cannot escape the conclusion that the negligent physician is liable for expenses reasonably foreseeable in connection with rearing the child.

. ■ Plainly .Galloway could not recover compensation from his employer for injuries resulting to him from any negligence. of his physician.

Nor could the .employer, or his insurance carrier, maintain any action against the physician for negligent injury to Galloway.

Galloway, relied upon by the appellant, is. not controlling here, because Powell, the negligent physician in that case, was the employee Galloway’s personal physician and choice, and the employer had nothing to do with his selection

It was claimed that the doctor was negligent in the selection of the substance and in the introduction of it into his blood.

The proof utterly fails to sustain the allegations of negligence respecting the diagnosis of the disease, or the determination of the doctor to use the particular medicine.

Negligence on the part of a physician may not be inferred from the effect his medicine may have on the patient.

The six cases before us present an attack on the constitutionality of the portion of KRS 413.140(2) that places a five-year cap on the institution of negligence or malpractice actions against physicians, surgeons, dentists, and hospitals

Actions to be brought within one year. — (1) The following actions shall be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued: [[Image here]] (e) An action against a physician, surgeon, dentist or hospital ... for negligence

Thus, the legislature has determined that a cause of action commenced more than 5 years after a negligent act is committed by a physician, surgeon, dentist, or hospital is not legally cognizable.

PATIENT’S HISTORY: NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE In this case, the question of negligence of the treating physicians and the hospital is closely related to the question of contributory negligence of Mrs.

When the physicians or nurses are negligent in obtaining the history, the patient is contributorily *256 negligent only if he knows the physician is unaware of a condition which imposes a risk of danger to the patient and his failure

Negligent failure to place page showing Mrs. Clark taking LASIX in hospital record or otherwise properly inform doctors of that fact. With the exception of Dr.

McKelvey, their physician, for the birth of an “unwanted” child. The appellants sued the physician alleging negligence in the performance of a bilateral vasectomy upon Jerry.

We ask whether these damages come within the bounds of consequential damages for the negligent conduct of a physician.

Common sense tells us that it is in society’s best interests to hold physicians to a standard of professional competence and impose liability when they are negligent in treating their patients.

Plainly Galloway could not recover compensation from his employer for injuries resulting to him from any negligence of his physician.

Nor could the employer, or his insurance carrier, maintain any action against the physician for negligent injury to Galloway. The physician was liable, if liable at all, only to his patient.

Complaint is made that one of the physicians was not permitted to express an opinion to the effect that the X-ray picture showed proper treatment by the physician who originally set the arm.

Law Rep. 646 , where an employe *293 sought to recover damages from the railroad company for the negligent manner in which the physicians furnished by it treated his wounds.

The court said: “The appellant was in no way responsible for the acts of the physician, or for his neglect of appellee, unless it be shown that appellant was careless and negligent in his selection, and that he was incompetent.

There is no pretense that appellant was careless or negligent in the selection of this physician and surgeon, or that he was in any way incompetent, and the court should not have permitted appellee to prove the misconduct, neglect

In such case the physician- is negligent, only in allowing intervals to elapse between visits to Ms patient where attention is needed. Neudeck v. Vestal, 117 Cal. App. 266 , 3 P. (2d) 595 . It is plain the presence of Dr.

on the part of the patient, either alone or simultaneously and in co-operation with the alleged negligence of the physician, then the patient has no right to recover damages from the physician”; but “where a physician has been guilty

The burden of proof is upon the patient to prove the negligence of the physician or surgeon, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of his injury and damages. Ault v. Hall, supra; Rawleigh v. Donoho, 238 Ky. 480 , 38 S.

The three doctors are members of an anesthesiology team who were allegedly negligent in regard to the insertion of a needle for a catheter which cut the patient’s artery causing cardiac arrest and ultimately death.

The three doctors deny any negligence and argue that the court lacks jurisdiction over them and the subject of this litigation because of sovereign immunity.

Discretionary acts will not result in liability when negligently per *222 formed. The administration of medical care is a ministerial function by employees, including doctors.

appellee acted negligently.

Neely, 54 S.W. 842 , 21 Ky.Law Rep. 1257, where the condition in which a doctor left a fractured ankle showed negligence and expert testimony was held to be unnecessary.

The rule that expert testimony is indispensable ought not to be too strictly applied, although ordinarily laymen are not qualified to say that a doctor was negligent or was not negligent.

R., 980) the exact language used in .section 74 was construed not to -apply -to an action -against a physician for negligence or want -of skill in the treatment -of patients.

*661 2516, said: “The question presented is whether the words, ‘an action for an injury to the’person of the plaintiff’ in this section cover an action against a physician for negligence or want of skill in the treatment of a. patient

The issue is whether the appellant, Paintsville Hospital, can be held liable on principles of ostensible agency or apparent authority for the negligence of a physician who was not employed by the hospital but who furnished treatment

Ikramuddin, who negligently failed to diagnose his condition. Dr. Ikramuddin was a private physician, and not an employee of the hospital.

Bernard Hospital, 79 Ill.App.3d 709 , 35 Ill.Dec. 364 , 399 N.E.2d 198 (1979), the court held that the hospital was not liable for the negligence of an emergency room physician, but the principle of ostensible agency was not advanced

So long as the plaintiff himself has exercised reasonable care in his selection of a physician, the defendant will be liable for all ordinary forms of professional negligence.”

Roles was not negligent, and had ample basis in the record for the holding. ' No attempt was made to show that the Atlanta doctor was negligent, and more importantly, there is no evidence that Marx was negligent in his selection of

the Atlanta physician.

” *156 It is significant, we think, that KRS 413.140(1) (e) in fixing a limitation period of one year uses this language: “An action against a physician or surgeon for negligence or malpractice.”

It seems apparent that the Legislature did not regard “negligence” and “malpractice” as synonymous.

Incorporated in this legal responsibility is the physician’s liability for want of the requisite knowledge and skill as well as for the doctor’s negligence. See 41 Am.Jur., Physicians and Surgeons, Sec. 79, p. 198.

This does not follow, since a competent and skilled physician and surgeon may be guilty of negligence and malpractice in a single case without losing his reputation of being competent.

exercised, its liability ceases, and it is not liable for the subsequent malpractice or negligence of the physician so employed.

Threlkeld was guilty of negligence.

of the several physicians.

of his engagement of the other-physicians, and, if one of them was guilty of negligence in his individual treatment, and thereby Rose was injured, the result was not that of concurring causes in the sense of the term “concurrent”

A physician who is engaged and treats a patient is-not an insurer and is liable only where negligence is the-proximate cause of his injury. Powell v. Galloway, 229 Ky. 37 , 16 S. W. (2d) 489 .

As a basis for dismissing pursuant to CR 56, the trial court reasoned that the appellants failed to meet their burden of producing expert testimony that the doctors were negligent in failing to diagnose Patricia Hopkins’ breast cancer

"To prevail, the plaintiff must" show that the hospital negligently granted privileges to a physician and that the negligently credentialed ·physician was in fact negligent and caused harm to the plaintiff." Id.

Like many negligence actions, a claim, of negligence • J against a hospital for the selection of its physicians is derivative of the medical malpractice claim against the physician.

As stated above, an action alleging the hospital's own negligence in credentialing physicians is derivative from the negligence of the physician.