Hankins, 249 N.C. 199 , 105 S.E. 2d 642 , to the effect that a general release executed in favor of one responsible for the original injury protects a physician or surgeon against a claim based on negligent treatment of the injury

The physician or surgeon is in no wise responsible for the prior injuries, nor should a release to one who caused them be a shield by which 'a negligent doctor may escape liability for his own negligence.

Such a release by judgment is embraced in G.S. 1-540.1, and does not relieve a negligent doctor.

The insurance carrier filed a cross-complaint against the physician for contribution on the theory that if the carrier and the physician were negligent they were joint tort feasors.

The decision in the Hoover case does not relate to the right of the injured employee to proceed directly against the physician or surgeon for damages due to negligent treatment of the original injury.

This provision of the Act has no relation to the liability of an attending physician or surgeon for negligence in the treatment of an injured employee.

Kazior's negligent supervision of resident physicians at Pitt County Memorial Hospital ("Hospital").

Swarthout, Annotation, Validity and Construction of Contract Exempting Hospital or Doctor from Liability for Negligence to Patient, 6 A.L.R.3d 704 (1966) (cases cited and analyzed therein and in the supplement); cf. 61 Am.Jur.2d Physicians

Kazior's liability for the alleged negligent delivery performed by resident physicians.

The corporate negligence claims allege that defendant was negligent by failing to adequately assess the physicians’ credentials before granting hospital privileges, by continuing the physicians’ privileges at the hospital, by failing

App. 329 , 271 S.E.2d 407 (1980), the plaintiff alleged the hospital was negligent in failing to promptly report test results to her physician.

physician.

L.J. 177 (1976); Payne, Recent Developments Affecting a Hospital’s Liability for Negligence of Physicians, 18 S.

Rev. 146 (1968); Annot., Hospital’s Liability for Negligence in Failing to Review or Supervise Treatment Given by Individual Doctor, or to Require Consultation, 14 A.L.R. 3d 873 (1967).

The hospital has the duty not to obey instructions of a physician which are obviously negligent or dangerous. Byrd v. Hospital, 202 N.C. 337 , 162 S.E. 738 (1932).

negligent.

The court found that she had the right to rely on her doctor and was not contributorily negligent.

The discovery rule applies to the “latent injury” cases in which the doctor negligently harms the patient, but the patient is unaware of the injury. It usually involves one distinct act of negligence. See, Tortorello v.

The above cases hold that it is the rule that if a doctor is not an agent of a hospital and he negligently injures his patient while on the premises of the hospital, the hospital is not liable to the patient on the theory of respondeat

The doctor in this case is not an agent of the hospital but *376 we believe the principle of Hoke should apply and a hospital should be liable for negligence in allowing an unqualified doctor to perform operations in the hospital

The plaintiff contends it is negligence not to provide such assistance although the hospital does not know the doctor is unqualified if it would have known through the exercise of ordinary care.

, were negligent in their supervision of the resident physicians.

Kazior, as the on-call supervising physician when the plaintiff child was born, alleging negligent supervision of the OB resident physicians. The plaintiffs alleged that Dr.

who had been granted clinical privileges at the Hospital), thereby allowing the resident physicians’ negligence to be imputed to the attending physicians.

by the negligent treatment of the injury.

McIver, sufra, the Court said: “The rule is now well established that a wrongdoer is liable for the ultimate result, though the mistake or even negligence of the physician who treated the injury may have increased the damage which

would otherwise have followed from the original wrong. * i:‘ In such case satisfaction by the original wrongdoer of all damages by his wrong bars action against the negligent physician who aggravated the damage.

Haworth, their privately retained physician, was an agent of the Hospital; and (2) the Hospital was liable to them under both corporate negligence and battery theories since the Hospital was under a duty to, but never did, obtain Mr

The hospital has the duty not to obey instructions of a physician which are obviously negligent or dangerous. Byrd v. Hospital, 202 N.C. 337 , 162 S.E. 738 (1932).

They do not allege negligence by the Hospital in the selection or referral of the physician they privately retained.

Plaintiffs filed suit for negligence against defendants, alleging defendant physician failed to monitor effects of prescription *426 medication. The action centers around treatment rendered by defendant, Dr.

In that case, the plaintiff had alleged a negligence claim against a physician after the physician had performed surgery.

was made alone or coupled with a claim of negligence against an individual physician

The general rule is that an action for damages caused by the negligence or unskillfulness of a physician or surgeon engaged by one person to attend upon another, professionally, cannot be maintained against the employer, unless he

of such surgeon or physician.

of the surgeon or physician.”

, and that without proof of negligence in this respect no liability attaches to the hospital for injury due to negligence or unskillful treatment of the patient by the physician.

Ordinarily, the hospital undertakes only to furnish room, food, facilities for operation, and attendance, and is not liable for damages resulting from the negligence of a physician in the absence of evidence of agency, or other facts

The rationale of the general rule which exempts employers from liability for the negligence of a physician is stated in 19 L. R.

“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital is liable for the negligence of a physician or surgeon acting as its agent.” Hylton v. Koontz, 138 N.C.

Cases alleging a failure by the hospital to adequately monitor and oversee a physician or which contend the hospital was negligent in granting privileges to unqualified physicians are examples of the latter, and require the court to

a doctor.

In McAllister , the Court considered a motion to dismiss a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against a doctor. Id. at 645-46 , 496 S.E.2d at 582-83 .

There, the plaintiff sued the hospital for the allegedly negligent acts of three of its physicians under theories of respondent superior and corporate negligence. Id. at 98-99 , 547 S.E.2d at 143 .

For the corporate negligence claim, the plaintiff alleged that the hospital was negligent by failing to adequately assess the physicians’ credentials before granting hospital privileges, by continuing the physicians’ privileges at

These were three-fold: plaintiffs alleged first that Hall’s action in revealing confidential information disclosed to him during his treatment of plaintiff Linda Watts to her various physicians constituted malpractice; second, that

Hall negligently conducted his counseling of her and exceeded the proper parameters of his role; and third, that he had intentionally assisted her physicians in fraudulently concealing from her the true nature of her injuries in an

She alleges that the physicians who treated her at that time negligently failed to discover these fractures, and those who have treated her since knew about these fractures and “covered up” for the original doctors’ negligence.

App. at 149-50 , 423 S.E.2d at 323 (concluding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inappropriate where a layperson, without the benefit of expert testimony, would have no basis for concluding the physician was negligent in extracting

Axelbank’s statements to the effect that plaintiff’s symptoms were caused by the drug and that he felt responsible do not give a layperson sufficient evidence to infer the doctor was negligent in prescribing Seroquel to plaintiff.

It is unclear whether this type of injury ordinarily occurs without negligence by the physician, and this inquiry would require expert testimony.

We shall first discuss the alleged negligence of defendants, Drs. Wentz and Dineen, and conclude with a consideration of the defendant hospital’s alleged negligence.

“A physician or surgeon who undertakes to render professional services must meet these requirements: (1) He must possess the degree of professional learning, skill, and ability which others similarly situated ordinarily possess; (2

Thus, the plaintiff having failed to establish by expert testimony the standard of care to be exercised by the defendant doctors, it follows a fortiori that plaintiff has shown no negligence on defendants’ part.