-
321 N.E.2d 787 Ohio Supreme Court January 8, 1975 No. 74-10
Although appellant has raised four propositions of law, the basic issue is whether a tortfeasor responding in damages resulting from the negligent treatment by a physician of the original injury caused by the negligence of the tortfeasor
Although a tortfeasor, pursuant to Tanner, supra, is liable for the results of negligent treatment by a physician of the injury caused by the tortfeasor, the physician is not responsible for the results of the negligence of the tortfeasor
However, the original tortfeasor is responsible for the negligence of the physician because the tortfeasor’s negligence created the risk (the injury) and the occasion for the independent negligence of the physician.
-
2009 Ohio 4175, 916 N.E.2d 1029 Ohio Supreme Court August 26, 2009 No. 2007-2202
a finding of negligence against the doctor.
WM-07-001, 2007-Ohio-5469, ¶ 18 (“Determining that staff physician negligence must be proven as an element of a negligent-credentialing claim against an employer does not interpose a legal requirement to name the staff physician
issue at trial when doctors and hospital were named parties, reasoning that “the matter * * * did not become ripe as to the issue of negligent credentialing until and if medical negligence was found on behalf of appellee [doctor]”
-
648 N.E.2d 1375 Ohio Court of Appeals September 24, 1993 No. 1942.
The hospital, in effect, argued that Albain thus permits the subsequent negligence of a physician to relieve the negligence of a nurse.
The physicians’ continued acts of negligence operated to break the chain of causation between the nurses’ acts and appellant’s injuries.
After 3:50 p.m., the nurses committed no negligent acts cooperating with the physicians’ negligent acts. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons we overrule appellants’ assignment .of error.
-
106 Ohio St. 3d 185 Ohio Supreme Court September 14, 2005 No. 2004-0284Cited by 320 Dissent · Pfeifer
Indeed, in Clark, the negligent doctor and his practice group were not parties to that case at the time of that trial. Clark, 68 Ohio St.3d at 436 , 628 N.E.2d 46 .
doctors before the expiration of the statute of limitations did not destroy the hospital’s right of indemnity against them.
For instance, for nonemergency procedures, where a patient has chosen her own doctor to provide medical services within the hospital, Clark should not apply.
-
857 N.E.2d 573 Ohio Supreme Court December 13, 2006 No. 2005-0896Cited by 58 Dissent · Pfeifer
When in the Court of Claims, the doctor accused of negligence will be pointing at the empty chair — that is, at the doctor who is susceptible to suit only in the court of common pleas.
And when in the court of common pleas, the doctor accused of negligence will be pointing at a different empty chair — at the doctor who is only susceptible to suit in the Court of Claims.
a doctor from negligence whenever negligence occurs in the presence of a student.
-
1993 Ohio 178 Ohio Supreme Court June 30, 1993 No. 1991-2079
of a physician by hospital is not "medical diagnosis, care or treatment" within meaning of R.C. 2305.11—Action against hospital for bodily injury arising from negligent credentialing of physician subject to two-year limitations
Negligent credentialing of a physician by a hospital is not "medical diagnosis, care, or treatment" within the meaning of R.C. 2305.11. 3.
I strongly disagree because I believe the plaintiffs had earlier notice of SEMC's negligence in granting staff privileges to the defendant- physicians. {¶ 80} The record indicates that both Browning and Mitchell signed the following
-
2007 Ohio 5469 Ohio Court of Appeals October 12, 2007 No. WM-07-001.Cited by 2 Unpublished
When the Browning court resolved the negligent credentialing claim in that case, only one of the two allegedly negligent doctors was present in the action.
The element of staff physician negligence as a component of a negligent credentialing claim can be proven without the allegedly negligent physician as a named party. Dicks v. U.S. Health Corp. (May 10, 1996), 4th Dist.
Determining that staff physician negligence must be proven as an element of a negligent credentialing claim against an employer does not interpose a legal requirement to name the staff physician as a defendant and prove the negligence
-
553 N.E.2d 1038 Ohio Supreme Court April 25, 1990 No. 88-2208
We do not hold, however, that a hospital may never be held liable for the negligence of a physician with staff privileges.
A physician’s negligence does not automatically mean that the hospital is liable, and does not raise a presumption that the hospital was negligent in granting the *259 physician staff privileges. Crumley v.
plaintiff to believe that the negligent physician was operating as an agent under the hospital’s authority, Johnson v.
-
2022 Ohio 4265, 218 N.E.3d 731 Ohio Supreme Court December 1, 2022 No. 2021-0241
, but only after a determination that the doctor had been negligent.
Though a negligent-credentialing claim is independent, our caselaw is patently clear: negligent-credentialing claims are not viable in the 4 January Term, 2022 absence of medical negligence by the treating doctor.
Being able to drag a doctor who has already settled with a patient back into a negligent- credentialing case might lead to fewer medical-negligence settlements. 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO physician was negligent is precluded from
-
642 N.E.2d 1102 Ohio Supreme Court December 14, 1994 No. 94-79
It is well-established common law of Ohio that malpractice is limited to the negligence of physicians and attorneys.
We further observed in Richardson that in 1894, when the General Assembly amended the one-year statute of limitations to include malpractice actions, the legal definition of “malpractice” was limited to negligence on the part of doctors
Therefore, causes of action for malpractice are limited to actions arising from the negligence of attorneys and physicians under the common law and those other professions expressly designated by the General Assembly.
-
844 N.E.2d 1160 Ohio Supreme Court March 3, 2006 No. 2004-0296Cited by 13 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Pfeifer
In Simmerer , *506 the defendant doctor had negligently performed a sterilization procedure (as in Johnson), and the plaintiff mother ultimately became pregnant.
The Simmerer majority was extraordinarily slim, and the opinion left the door open for a cause of action in which the child’s birth defect was foreseeable by the negligent doctor.
Traditionally, the threat of suit has been part of the system we rely on to ensure the responsibility of doctors. Should prenatal counseling be the only area in which doctors are free from liability for negligence?
-
190 N.E. 229 Ohio Supreme Court March 28, 1934 No. 24233
The general rule is that where one who has suffered personal injuries by reason of the negligence of another exercises reasonable care in securing the services of a competent physician or surgeon, and his injuries are thereafter aggravated
or increased by the negligence, mistake, or lack of skill of such physician or surgeon, the law regards the negligence of the wrongdoer in causing the original injury as the proximate cause of the damages flowing from the subsequent
At the time of his injury H. was free from contributory negligence. Immediately after his injury he employed a physician of ‘good standing and reputation,’ placed *85 himself under his treatment, and followed his directions.
-
356 N.E.2d 496 Ohio Supreme Court November 3, 1976 No. 75-898
Although the hospital consent form was not an indemnity agreement, it appears to have been designed to release the hospital and attending physicians from, the consequences of their negligence.
Nowhere does the form mention release from liability for negligence. Instead- it merely speaks of absolving the hospital and attending physicians from the' “unfavorable results” of sterilization.
Actions for “wrongful life” are brought by children claiming damages due to the negligent failure of physicians to sterilize their parents.
-
613 N.E.2d 1014 Ohio Supreme Court June 30, 1993 No. 91-2558
Second, does, negligence on the part of the attending physician necessarily relieve the hospital of liability for a breach of the nurse’s duty of care?
Thus, we hold that the intervening negligence of an attending physician does not absolve a hospital of its prior negligence if both co-operated in proximately causing an injury to the patient and no break occurred in the chain of causation
In order to break the chain, the intervening negligence of the physician must be disconnected from the negligence of the hospital and must be of itself an efficient, independent, and self-producing cause of the patient’s injury.
-
777 N.E.2d 850 Ohio Court of Appeals March 28, 2002 No. 01AP-619 (REGULAR CALENDAR).
. {¶ 2} This case rests upon allegations of medical negligence brought by Karen S. Ferguson and her two children against appellees and Doctors Hospital.
proximate supervision over the hospital employee whose negligence might be imputed to the physician.
The court applied an independent-contractor analysis comparable to that set forth in Halkias, supra, and found that no employer-employee relationship existed between the doctor and the negligent nurse: “Their relationship is comparable
-
1994 Ohio 519 Ohio Supreme Court March 15, 1994 No. 1992-2194
Hospitals—Physicians and surgeons—Malpractice—Hospital may be held liable under the doctrine of agency by estoppel for the negligence of independent medical practitioners operating in the hosptial, when.
Kimberly was pronounced dead at 11:16 a.m. that morning at Southview, allegedly as a proximate result of negligent medical care provided by Dr. Thomas Mucci, D.O., the emergency-room physician on duty at Southview.
those independent physicians. {¶ 33} In Cooper v.
-
2021 Ohio 29 Ohio Court of Appeals January 8, 2021 No. L-19-1264
negligence case conceded on the record and under oath the essential elements of Plaintiff-Appellant’s medical negligence claim and Plaintiff-Appellant subsequently settled his claim for medical negligence against the defendant-doctor
and the settlement agreement did not stipulate that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the defendant-doctor’s negligence. {¶ 11} “To prove a negligent-credentialing claim, a plaintiff injured by the negligence of a staff doctor
Notably, the bankruptcy court did not enter a finding that the defendant-doctor was negligent in his treatment of the plaintiff, and the defendant-doctor did not admit negligence.
-
1993 Ohio 183 Ohio Supreme Court June 29, 1993 No. 1991-2558
, such act is not excluded from nurse's duty, when -- Intervening negligence of attending physician does not absolve hospital of its prior negligence, when. 1.
The intervening negligence of an attending physician does not absolve a hospital of its prior negligence if both co-operated in proximately causing an injury to the patient and no break occurred in the chain of causation between
In order to break the chain, the intervening negligence of the physician must be disconnected from the negligence of the hospital and must be of itself an efficient, independent, and self-producing cause of the patient's injury
-
2007 Ohio 5468 Ohio Court of Appeals October 9, 2007 No. 2006 CA 00389.
I . {¶ 16} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in not giving a jury instruction stating that a doctor is responsible for the negligent acts of his or her agents. We disagree.
If you find by the greater weight of the evidence that such radiography technician was under the control and direction of the physician and that such person was negligent, you shall find that the physician was negligent. {¶ 21} "
If you further find by the greater weight of the evidence that the employee was negligent in the scope of the task assigned by the physician, then you shall find that the physician was negligent." 1 Ohio Jury Instructions § 331.09.
-
637 N.E.2d 13 Ohio Court of Appeals March 15, 1993 No. 61377.
The issue before this court is what is the hospital’s duty once it knows that the staff physician has been negligent.
Furthermore, Albain does provide for hospital liability for the negligence of physician staff members, who are treated as independent contractors.
of such independent private physician.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.