In this case, plaintiff alleges that the defendant physician negligently injured him while performing an independent medical examination.

Any count sounding in negligence against the physician, it reasoned, would be a claim of medical malpractice that would require a physician-patient relationship.

*55 If the IME physician’s alleged negligence sounds in malpractice, he will be able to avail himself of the evidentiary protections the Legislature has granted to physicians in other circumstances.

Was the diagnosis as to the location of the bullet negligent?

As to Doctor Friedlaender’s negligence, the jury could infer that he relied on his manual examination, in which he incorrectly thought that he felt the bullet on the right side, and that he paid little heed to the X-ray.

Thus the negligence of both Doctor Friedlaender and Doctor Minor resulted in an inaccurate diagnosis of the course taken by the bullet. See Rodgers v. Canfield, 272 Mich. 562, 564 .

*101 In a medical malpractice case, “[a] hospital may be 1) directly liable for malpractice, through claims of negligence in supervision of staff physicians as well as selection and retention of medical staff, or 2) vicariously

Because the remaining defendants may only be vicariously liable on the basis of the imputed negligence of [plaintiffs physician], plaintiff must demonstrate that [his physician] was negligent in order for the remaining defendants to

the negligence claim against [him].

Suarez were individually liable for their own negligent acts, plaintiffs alleged that there existed reciprocal principal-agent relationships between the doctors and that each doctor was vicariously liable *337 for the negligent acts

A physician or surgeon may be liable for the negligence or malpractice of another physician or surgeon acting as his agent.

The Strong Court held that when the alleged negligent doctor provided the plaintiff, at his expense, with another doctor’s care, he continued to *342 "otherwise serve” the patient.

actions of physicians practicing medicine at the hospital in addition to the claimed negligence of Dr.

Generally speaking, a hospital is not vicariously liable for the negligence of a physician who is an independent contractor and merely uses the hospital’s facilities to render treatment to his patients.

In this respect, there are three things which the plaintiff must prove: "That the acts of Doctor Fugle were negligent, as negligence has been defined to you.

■such carelessness or negligence of the plaintiff, her nurse or physician, or any person in charge of her, caused or contributed to the injuries alleged to have been sustained — provided you find that any were- sustained- — then the

A case of alleged malpractice is an illustration: A patient •sues his physician for injuries consequent upon unskilful or negligent treatment of his case, and the physician defeats his action by showing that the patient’s own negligence

But in such a case the negligence of the patient comes in to qualify, affect and change the treatment of the physician in which the negligence is to be found, and a remedy is denied, for the reason that the "two, by the act of the

Kasai was negligent in failing to consult with other physicians or in failing to administer an anticoagulant is totally unrelated to the allegedly negligent act at issue — the injection of Garamycin which proximately caused the heart

Kasai’s breach of other duties tended to show that he was a negligent doctor and, therefore, probably negligent regarding the Garamycin injection. Such evidence was highly prejudicial. Testimony concerning Dr.

Kasai’s breach of other duties tended to establish that he *274 was a negligent doctor generally.

physician for negligent treatment of the injury.

physicians.

X is taken to the hospital and the doctor sets the broken bones in such a negligent manner as to render the legs unusable.

This doctrine, which was discussed in Howard v Park, 4 has been applied to hold a hospital liable for the negligence of a physician who was not an employee or agent of the institution.

(Footnotes omitted.) 5 In Howard, supra, the owner of a medical clinic was found to be liable for the negligence of an independent contractor physician, as (1) the owner referred the plaintiff to the physician, (2) the treatment

In Grewe v Mount Clemens General Hospital, 6 the Supreme Court enunciated the proposition that a hospital generally is not vicariously liable for the negligence of a physician who is an independent contractor and only uses

During the course of the general charge the court instructed the jury as follows: “The rule is that, in order to recover in this case, she must prove two things: First, that the defendant (the doctor) was negligent; that she herself

(that is the driver — the one who was driving the horse) — was not negligent.

The plaintiff must prove that the doctor was negligent, and must prove that the driver of the horse attached to the wagon she was riding in, was not negligent. * * * “The doctor also claimed that the action of the plaintiff — the

Thus, if a physician undertakes to diagnose, treat, or otherwise care for a person, an action will lie if he performs these functions negligently.

Liability cannot be imposed against a physician who does nothing negligent, just because some physical injury occurs during an IME, without any further analysis.

The fact-finder must determine what actually occurred during the ime and decide whether physical injury proximately resulted from some negligent act on the part of the physician.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant, a physician, was negligent and unskillful in performing an operation on Ralph D. Chafen.

Expert witnesses are required to prove a physician was negligent and unskillful unless the negligence and unskillfulness were such as to be within the common knowledge and experience of laymen. Lince v.

In Duvall v Goldin, supra , this Court recently extended Davis to uphold a negligence claim against a physician based upon allegations analogous to those presented in the case at bar.

person who was a cause-in-fact of plaintiff's injuries; (2) breach of the applicable standard of care required by the doctor in the treatment of the patient; and (3) that the negligent treatment of the patient was a proximate cause

The majority today extends this duty to persons not involved in the physician-patient contractual relationship. The issue here is "duty" not whether medical malpractice is "in essence" a tort claim in negligence.

The statements of both doctors were to the contrary. The plaintiff also attempted to show that defendant was negligent in allowing eleven months to pass without altering the treatment program. Dr.

In Guilmet v Campbell, 385 Mich 57, 69 ; 188 NW2d 601, 606-607 (1971), a contract and negligence action against a doctor, our Supreme Court, in affirming the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding

The question of whether a doctor is negligent in failing to inform the patient of possible consequences of an operation is to be determined according to the general practice customarily followed by the medical profession in the locality

Is a physician liable to third persons injured as a result of the physician’s negligence in treating a patient who, as a result of his medical condition, causes an automobile accident involving the third persons?

In both cases, the courts found that the third parties had a cause of action against the physician for negligence and found that the harm, injury to third parties as a result of the patient’s impaired driving ability, was reasonably

Further, even though defendant may have failed to instruct Hubbard not to drive, Hubbard, too, may have been negligent in resuming driving without the express consent of his physician, or in otherwise failing to recognize the danger

As stated by the Supreme Court in Morgan v Engles, 372 Mich 514, 516 ; 127 NW2d 382, 383-384 (1964): "It is obviously the law that in order to recover for the negligence of a physician, plaintiff must show that such negligence was

Gesink (a radiologist) is admittedly without competence to testify as to any negligence of his codefendant orthopedist or family physician. The trial judge’s ruling in exclusion of this testimony was not erroneous.

The negligence with which the doctor was charged was: First, a failure to ligate the severed and injured arteries; second, in failing to visit and attend to the patient as often and as much as he should have done.

But it is insisted in his behalf that, in any event, the case comes within a class of cases known as “emergency cases,” wherein, if a physician exercises his best judgment as to the treatment, he is not liable for negligence for an

This exception to the ordinary rule of negligence is based upon the assumption that the physician has informed himself of the existing conditions.