That is, she sought damages against the doctor for his alleged negligent aggravation of her prior injuries (resulting from the fall on the hospital floor) by improper treatment. Dr.

And it is the general rule that there can be no recovery in a malpractice suit by one who has sustained personal injuries in consequence of a third person's negligence, against a physician for negligent aggravation of such injuries

or surgeon for damages incurred by his negligent treatment of the injury, at least in the absence of a finding that the negligence of the physician or surgeon produced an entirely new injury."

The plaintiff bases his claim of a right to a reversal of the judgment upon his contention that, in an action against physicians, where the plaintiff seeks to recover for pain and suffering caused by the negligence. and carelessness

He is not required to institute an action at law against the physician to recover for the result of the negligence or carelessness of the physician.

Herein the pain and suffering for which recovery is sought were alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the physicians, their unskillful and improper treatment of the plaintiff, and their lack of ordinary care in treating

He further urges the Act should not be used to protect physicians and hospitals from liability for their own negligence.

Apparently in both these cases, on basis of liability of employer alone, the court found an injured employee could not maintain a common law action for pain and suffering against a negligent treating physician.

Nowhere does it confer a similar immunity upon a negligent physician or hospital.

Wolfe, 357 P.2d 1005 (Okla.1960), which held there cannot be recovery in a malpractice suit by one who has sustained personal injuries in consequence of a third person’s negligence, against a physician for negligent aggravation of

Under our law the general rule is that an original tortfeasor, negligently causing injury to a third person, is liable for the negligence of a physician who treats the injured person where negligent treatment results in aggravation

Co., supra, that an original tortfeasor, negligently causing injury to a third person, is liable for the negligence of a physician who treats the injured person where negligent treatment results in aggravation of or increasing the

and staff were grossly negligent.

On July 9, 1982, Fox filed a petition alleging that the State and various physicians and staff were negligent in his treatment.

of the hospital physicians and staff was either so flagrant, so deliberate, or so reckless that it is removed from the realm of mere negligence.

On July 8, 1958, she filed malpractice action against physician for damages resulting from negligent treatment of injuries suffered in fall.

There we held in paragraph one of syllabus : “There can’ be no recovery in a malpractice suit by one who has sustained personal injuries in consequence of a third person’s negligence, against a physician for negligent aggravation

or surgeon for damages incurred by his negligent treatment of the injury, at least in the absence of a finding that the negligence of the physician or surgeon produced an entirely new injury.”

On the 2d day of July, 1917, plaintiff instituted the instant action against the defendant, in the district court of Pawnee county, Okla., seeking damages -resulting from the negligence of the physician so employed to exercise reasonable

For reversal, plaintiff relies upon two grounds: First, Does the district court have jurisdiction to entertain an action for damages for personal injuries occasioned by the negligence of the physician furnished by an employer pursuant

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the injuries resulting from the negligent or unskillful treatment by a physician, furnished by an employer pursuant to, and in treating his employe for injuries coming within the purview of

Ensey’s negligent act in so doing. The evidence shows without dispute that the relationship of physician and patient was created between Dr. Ensey and plaintiff. Dr.

Ensey, the attending physician, and without any act of negligence on her part. The same may be said of the case of Tulsa Hospital Ass’n v. Juby, 73 Okla. 243 , 175 P. 519 , cited by plaintiff.

Ensey in giving his instructions to the nurse and not because of any independent act of negligence on her part after the doctor left the hospital, as in the cases relied on by plaintiff.

No allegations of neglect on the part of the doctor performing the operation are alleged in the petition, and, clearly, if this were a suit against the. doctor for negligent conduct of said operation, this demurrer would have to be

habit of doing medical work in a negligent manner, or by the exercise of any judgment whatsoever could have or should have known that said doctor would perform the said operation in a negligent manner.

Wheate, supra, an action by a woman against a physician for the negligent performance of an operation by which an abortion was brought about, which action contained two counts, one based upon contract by which the doctor was to produce

acts of the attending physician superseded their negligence.

Based on this testimony, the hospital argues that any negligence on its part was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries, as the independent intervening negligent acts of the doctor relieved *1084 the hospital

The hospital argues that they could not possibly have foreseen the doctor’s actions, arguing that the manner in which the doctor acted was negligent.

liability, (2) the physician was not negligent and (3) his conduct did not cause the injury.

Negligence And Causation Factors Summary disposition in the physician’s favor is rested on the nisi prius ruling that, as a matter of law (a) the physician was not negligent (based upon his compliance with the hospital safety rules

or negligence in the supervision of resident physicians — cannot be identified.

II THE 1985 VERSION OF THE GTCA DID NOT CONFER IMMUNITY UPON FACULTY PHYSICIANS FOR NEGLIGENCE OCCURRING IN THE DELIVERY OF HEALTH-CARE SERVICES Dr.

Under the theory of ostensible agency, a hospital can be vicariously liable for the negligence of a physician, notwithstanding the physician’s independent contractor status, when the patient looks for treatment "solely to the hospital

Although state hospitals do not bear respondeat superior liability for negligence of faculty physicians — who are statutorily deemed nonemployees — these institutions are nonetheless answerable in tort for their own negligence

causing injury to another is liable for the negligence of a physician who treats the injured person where the negligent treatment results in the aggravation of injuries, so long as the injured person exercises good faith in the choice

In Weinstein , the rule holding the original tortfeasor liable for the negligence of a physician who treats the injured party was extended to injuries sustained by one injured while being conveyed to a place where medical service

Annot., “Civil Liability of One Causing Personal Injury for Consequence of Negligence, Mistake, or Lack of Skill of Physician or Surgeon Present,” 100 A.L.R.2d 808 (1955). 8 . Pryor v. Lee C.

Therefore, Hospital could not be held accountable for negligence, if any, of said physicians in administering treatment in Hospital's emergency room. Resulting, the case against Hospital was dismissed.

Clements General Hospital, 404 Mich. 240 , 273 N.W.2d 429 (1978) the Court stated: 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

Consequently the hospital must be held accountable for the negligence, if any, of its authorized emergency room physician regardless of whether or not he is an independent contractor by secret limitations contained in private contract

Before the emergence of corporate negligence, hospital liability for the negligence of a staff physician was based on the theory of respondent superior.

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 physician staff privileges.

conduct on the part of the physician or obviously negligent conduct by the physician.

Wolfe, 357 P.2d 1005 (Okla.1960), which held there cannot be recovery in a malpractice suit by one who has sustained personal injuries in consequence of a third person’s negligence, against a physician for negligent aggravation of

Under our law the general rule is that an original tortfeasor, negligently causing injury to a third person, is liable for the negligence of a physician who treats the injured person where negligent treatment results in aggravation

Co., supra, that an original tortfeasor, negligently causing injury to a third person, is liable for the negligence of a physician or other health care provider who treats the injured person where negligent treatment results in aggravation

Plaintiff appeals from judgment on jury verdict entered in favor of defendant in a medical negligence action. Defendant doctor has appealed from the order assessing costs.

Bacigalupi, 47 Cal.App.2d 82 , 117 P.2d 399 (1 Dist.1941) (in action against physician for malpractice in treating infection to plaintiffs foot after she stepped on a nail, whether patient was contributorily negligent in her attempts

Under the guise of a claim of contributory negligence, a physician simply may not avoid liability for negligent treatment by asserting that the patient’s injuries were originally caused by the patient’s own negligence.

Patient and child have sued doctor under Oklahoma Informed Consent Law alleging the doctor was negligent in failing to disclose material information concerning abortion as an alternative course of treatment.

Patient argues that because the Oklahoma abortion statute is unconstitutional, and because physicians in Oklahoma must conform to national, not local, standards of care in treatment of patients, doctor was negligent for not informing

A jury rendered a verdict for doctor, patient and child appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals where the verdict was affirmed. After a timely motion, rehearing was denied, certiorari was granted. I.

The evidence does not show that Doctors Ma and Me were negligent in failing to discover plaintiff’s ACS before performing the laminectomy, or at any other time prior to the exploratory operation on Wednesday, November 16th.

Because of the weight of the evidence showing that no negligence on the part of these doctors was the proximate cause of any unintentional tort for which plaintiff claimed damages, we are also of the opinion that the trial court’s

We think, however, that, under the rule of appellate review applicable here, since the trial court’s above quoted Instructions Nos. 6 and 10 seem to make it reasonably clear that the defendant doctors’ negligence, or lack of it, was