-
190 N.E. 487 New York Court of Appeals April 17, 1934
A physical injury sustained through the negligence of one person may be cured by the skill of a physician, or aggravated through his negligence.
The negligence of the physician may then give rise to a cause of action against him, to recover the damages which the injured person would not otherwise have sustained.
In such case satisfaction by the original wrongdoer of all damages caused by his wrong bars action against the negligent physician who aggravated the damage. The law does not permit a double satisfaction for a single injury.
-
196 N.E. 308 New York Court of Appeals May 21, 1935
Thus it appears that the claimant has sought from the insurance carrier, in an action for malpractice, damages caused by the negligence of physicians employed by the carrier which aggravated the result of the original injury, and he
A person who negligently injures another is not a joint tort feasor with a physician whose negligence thereafter aggravates the original injury.
More than that, these results would not have followed from the original injury but for the independent negligence of the physician.
-
767 N.E.2d 125 New York Court of Appeals February 14, 2002Cited by 83 Dissent · Smith
Plaintiff alleged and sought to prove that the defendant doctor was negligent in ligating the renal artery during surgery.
The fact that there was a bad result to the patient by itself does not make the doctor liable. The doctor is liable only if he was negligent.
Whether the doctor was negligent is to be decided on the basis of the facts and conditions existing at the time of the claimed negligence.
-
523 N.E.2d 284 New York Court of Appeals March 29, 1988
A physician who designates another doctor to "cover” for him, in the circumstances presented, is not liable for the covering doctor’s own negligence in treating the regular physician’s patient.
If liability were now to be imposed vicariously on physicians for the independent negligence of their covering doctors, some would doubtless be discouraged from making arrangements for the continuous care of their patients, but those
By the same token, covering doctors are independently responsible, as treating physicians, for their negligence. 5 Thus, we decline to enlarge the doctrine of vicarious liability to reach the situation here, and conclude that it was
-
96 Misc. 585 New York Supreme Court September 15, 1916
Prior to 1900 actions against physicians and surgeons and, I take it, also dentists and other professional men based upon their negligence which resulted in bodily injury were within the three-year statute of limitations, as we have
It is said also in 26 Cyc. supra, 121, that as applied to physicians and surgeons malpractice means negligent acts committed by a physician in treating his patient or the unskillful treatment by a physician or surgeon in consequence
Prior to the legislation of 1900, above referred to, the term “ malpractice ” was applied by our Court of Appeals in a number of cases as characterizing negligence upon the part of physicians and surgeons. Carpenter v.
-
187 N.E.2d 556 New York Court of Appeals December 31, 1962
who negligently treated those injuries. .
It is settled that a wrongdoer is liable for all of the proximate results of his own tortious act, including (in a case such as the present) the aggravation of the original injury caused by the negligence of the physician.
physician as well.
-
577 N.E.2d 1026 New York Court of Appeals July 9, 1991
The gravamen of plaintiff’s claim is not that the doctor performed certain negligent acts or omissions during a course of treatment for her breast condition, but rather that the doctor was negligent in failing to establish a course
-
522 N.E.2d 1047 New York Court of Appeals March 29, 1988
It is generally true that the mere referral of a patient by one physician to another, without more, does not render the referring doctor vicariously liable for the negligence of the treating physician (see, Kavanaugh v Nussbaum, 71
*869 This being so, defendant, as the initial wrongdoer, cannot escape liability merely by showing that the subsequent treating physician to whom plaintiff was referred was also negligent (see, Ravo v Rogatnick, 70 NY2d 305, 310
-
366 N.E.2d 64 New York Court of Appeals June 16, 1977
In their complaint the parents allege that the doctor was negligent in that he failed to take a proper genealogical history or to properly evaluate it.
In the case now before us, we assume, as we must in connection with this motion to dismiss (Cohn v Lionel Corp., 21 NY2d 559, 562 ), that the doctor was negligent in failing to take the proper measures to determine whether the fetus
Analogous, indeed stronger since the injuries would directly result from the tortious conduct of the *113 doctor, would be a case in which the doctor, in delivering the infant from the mother’s womb, committed an act of negligence
-
254 A.D. 265 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York May 27, 1938
She brings this action against defendant to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by her as a result of the negligent manner in which the doctor assigned by defendant performed the operation.
Defendant may be held liable only for its negligence in selecting the doctor, not for the latter’s negligence or malpractice in performing the *267 operation. (Hamburger v. Cornell University, 240 N. Y. 328 .)
Hence, it cannot be held to answer for the doctor’s negligence or malpractice. It may be held liable only for its negligence in selecting doctors who are incompetent and unfit to perform the work assigned to them.
-
123 N.E.2d 801 New York Court of Appeals December 31, 1954
.— the case against the physician was discontinued by consent — the Trial Judge determined that the physician had been negligent, that his employer, Sunshine, was responsible for his negligence, and that plaintiff was entitled to $30,000
Defendant relies on the rule, firmly established in this State, exempting hospitals from liability for the negligence of their physicians and nurses in the treatment of patients.
In such cases, it is not the person (i.e., the physician, nurse or orderly), but the nature of the negligent act, which determines the hospital’s liability (Dillon v. Rockaway Beach Hosp., supra).
-
81 A.D.2d 1003 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York May 15, 1981
The complaint does not allege that the defendant hospital is vicariously liable for the claimed negligence of the physician.
Accordingly, plaintiff should furnish particulars only as to the defendant hospital which may, however, demand to know whether plaintiff claims that the hospital is vicariously liable and, if so, the acts of physician negligence upon
-
144 A.D.2d 910 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York November 15, 1988
The evidentiary material submitted by defendant hospital is insufficient to establish as a matter of law that it may not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the emergency room physician who treated plaintiff.
A hospital may be held vicariously liable for a physician’s malpractice when the patient sought medical care from the hospital rather than from a particular physician, even where the allegedly negligent physician was an independent
-
49 A.D.2d 889 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York October 6, 1975
In Action No. 2 plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the alleged negligence of defendant’s physicians in their treatment of his fractured ankle. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendant.
The trial court then charged, with respect to defendant’s negligence: "If you find * * * that the hospital’s action or omissions, through its employees or doctors, in failing to immobilize the plaintiff’s leg and to giving him the
Under such circumstances, damages are reduced to the degree that the plaintiff’s negligence increased the extent of the injury (Morse v Rapkin, 24 AD2d 24, 25 ; 45 NY Jur, Physicians & Surgeons, § 171).
-
504 N.E.2d 389 New York Court of Appeals December 19, 1986
In this action for personal injuries against a doctor and a hospital allegedly arising from negligent surgery, treatment and care, a single copy of the summons and complaint was served upon the hospital administrator on February 6,
Generally, in malpractice and negligence actions, defendants will be considered united in interest, rather than joint tort-feasors, when one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other (see, Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30 ; see also
For a hospital to be vicariously liable for the negligence of a physician, ordinarily an employment relationship, rather than mere affiliation, is required (see, Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 NY2d 72 ; Topel v Long Is. Jewish Med.
-
45 A.D.3d 755 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York November 20, 2007
In this regard, one physician can be held vicariously liable for another physician’s active negligence if the physician had “some control of’ the actively negligent physician’s “course of treatment” of a patient (Kavanaugh v Nussbaum
Thus, a finding of vicarious liability could be predicated upon a physician’s “control in fact” over an actively negligent physician (Kavanaugh v Nussbaum, 71 NY2d at 547 ; see Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 79 [1986]; cf.
-
146 N.E. 199 New York Court of Appeals December 9, 1924
The court below held that the waiver doctrine is the foundation of the rule which exempts a hospital from liability for the negligence of its physicians and nurses in the treatment of patients who are regarded as the beneficiaries
The distinction is sought to be made between exoneration from liability for the negligence of physicians and nurses employed by the hospital to care for its patients and for the negligence of cooks, maids and orderlies who also act
-
65 A.D.2d 388 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York December 18, 1978Cited by 54 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Suozzi
The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the defendant doctors were all employees of the hospital and were negligent in treating the deceased.
by their negligence.
If on the other hand, these employees remained employees of the hospital, then they either acted reasonably in obediently following the negligent direction of the doctors, or they acted unreasonably, i.e., negligently, in so doing.
-
134 A.D.2d 308 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York November 9, 1987
A hospital may under appropriate circumstances be held vicariously liable for a physician’s malpractice when the patient sought medical care from the hospital rather than from a particular physician; this is so even where the allegedly
negligent physician was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the hospital (see, Hill v St.
-
283 A.D. 105 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York December 15, 1953
master may be liable for the negligence of the physician who is protecting the master’s interests and is acting for the benefit of his employer.
It matters not whether the negligent act *109 is ascribed to a physician or nurse; it is the act and not the position of the actor that furnishes the test.
Upon the proof adduced, the trial court was justified in finding that plaintiff’s injuries are the result of the negligent acts of the physician and that in the circumstances of this case appellant was liable for such negligence.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.