-
2007 Ohio 5469 Ohio Court of Appeals October 12, 2007 No. WM-07-001.Cited by 2 Unpublished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
-
Ohio Court of Appeals February 26, 1999 Nos. C-970723, TRIAL NO. A-9401706Not cited Unpublished
The child claims that if the physician had not negligently performed the sterilization, he or she would not have been born, and therefore would not be required to incur the expenses of living.
The alleged negligence of the physicians did not cause Alicia's birth defects; rather, their negligence caused her to be alive, and incidental to that life are the disabilities that have developed for a reason unrelated to the doctors
Thus, no matter how Alicia frames her claim, she is essentially seeking damages for being born, since that is the only result of the physicians' alleged negligence.
-
986 F.2d 1422 Sixth Circuit February 23, 1993 No. 92-3502Not cited Unpublished
The Hospital had hired a doctor who allegedly engaged in negligent conduct spanning an extended period of time.
Both companies insured the Hospital for part of that period. 4 As the underlying malpractice action approached trial, OHIC proposed that the case be settled for $900,000, with the negligent doctor paying $400,000 and the two insurers
The negligent physician next settled, for $525,000. St. Paul then settled for $175,000, of which the Hospital paid $100,000 as a deductible. In other words, St.
-
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 1329 Connecticut Superior Court January 25, 2000 No. 423137Not cited Unpublished
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE (No. 113) CT Page 1330 This motion presents the important question of whether damages in a negligence case can be apportioned between a negligent driver and a subsequently negligent physician
On July 6, 1999, Peck brought an apportionment complaint against a number of physicians (the "doctors"), claiming that their negligence in treating Berlepsch after the accident was the cause of the injuries alleged by Berlepsch and
Both drivers of motor vehicles and doctors sued for negligence have insurable interests.
-
Michigan Court of Appeals December 19, 2017 No. 334598Not cited Unpublished
He was admitted and treated by three doctors who plaintiff alleges were negligent, and ultimately caused the decedent’s death.
The decedent’s wife, on behalf of his estate, sued defendant hospital on a theory of vicarious liability arising out of the doctors’ alleged negligence.
of the three allegedly negligent doctors.
-
Michigan Court of Appeals December 19, 2017 No. 334598Not cited Unpublished
He was admitted and treated by three doctors who plaintiff alleges were negligent, and ultimately caused the decedent’s death.
The decedent’s wife, on behalf of his estate, sued defendant hospital on a theory of vicarious liability arising out of the doctors’ alleged negligence.
of the three allegedly negligent doctors.
-
2005 Ohio 766 Ohio Court of Appeals February 24, 2005 No. 84350.
. {¶ 38} With respect to "standard of care" and "hindsight," the trial court charged the jury as follows: " Next, in determining whether the physician was negligent, you should consider his care in light of all the attendant circumstances
physician at the time the medical care was rendered."
(Internal quote and citation omitted.) {¶ 48} In this case, appellant presented evidence asserting that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to diagnose that Mrs.
-
Ninth Circuit March 27, 2020 No. 18-17211Not cited Unpublished
In his complaint, Kornberg asserted that VA doctors were negligent for “failing to provide proper, appropriate and necessary care and treatment” to Kornberg’s shoulder injury.
Instead, Kornberg characterized his claim as targeting the lack of “supervision of the VA doctors at issue and how that negligent supervision contributed to his injuries,” and 2 he asserted that the Government had not complied
The Government cannot be held vicariously liable unless the doctors themselves were negligent or otherwise engaged in “actionable conduct.” McCrosky v. Carson Tahoe Reg’l Med.
-
Fifth Circuit March 25, 1993 No. 92-8442Not cited Unpublished
Physician], committed any act of negligence in the care and treatment of Jermaine Broussard." The Broussards timely appealed.
action against the doctor had run.
Physician], committed any act of negligence in the care and treatment of Jermaine Broussard."
-
110 F.3d 63 Sixth Circuit April 4, 1997 No. 96-5050Cited by 266 Unpublished
Thus, 7 a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.
-
Ohio Court of Appeals September 30, 2002 No. 01CA2793.Not cited Unpublished
Sweet opined that the negligence of the nurses (i.e., failing to provide intrauterine resuscitation, alert the doctors to the baby's change of condition, and urge a more rapid delivery), combined with the negligence of the physicians
inform the treating physician of the patient's condition and monitor the patient as instructed by the physician) and the physician's own negligence were concurring proximate causes of the patient's injuries.
After 3:50 p.m., the nurses committed no negligent acts co-operating with the physicians' negligent acts." See Dillon v. Med. Ctr.
-
Fifth Circuit March 30, 2005 No. 04-30368Not cited Unpublished
Plaintiffs, Patterson’s survivors, do not persuade us that the district court legally erred in failing to distinguish between doctor and hospital negligence.
In its memorandum opinion the district court detailed the treatment of Patterson by the treating physicians and the hospital staff, and concluded that “the VA medical staff was not negligent in treating Patterson’s coagulopathy.
We do not believe that the district court erroneously thought that Louisiana law of medical malpractice is limited to physician negligence or that Plaintiffs’ claims in this particular case were so limited. 2 4.
-
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5737 Connecticut Superior Court July 16, 1991 No. CV88 34 83 12.Not cited Unpublished
Plaintiffs argue in their memorandum in opposition that "a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether or not the defendant hospital can be held liable for the negligence of the defendant physicians."
In Mather, plaintiff brought a medical malpractice actions against a hospital and staff physician alleging negligence in the delivery and post-delivery treatment of the minor plaintiff.
The dicta of Mather, although helpful, is not dispositive on the issue of whether a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of its staff physician under an apparent authority theory.
-
671 F. App'x 23 Third Circuit December 13, 2016 No. 16-3628Cited by 17 Unpublished
. § 1983 against prison staff, administrators, and a doctor, and a negligence claim under Pennsylvania state law against a doctor and health service provider after allegedly receiving inadequate medical treatment for a broken finger
-
583 F. App'x 689 Ninth Circuit July 17, 2014 No. 12-56201Not cited Unpublished
However, reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, they allege negligence independent of the contract, just as a patient can sue a doctor for negligence even though the patient and doctor also have a
-
Court of Appeals of South Carolina June 28, 2017 No. 2017-UP-265Not cited Unpublished
negligence).
may be held liable unless it is proven that the physician was grossly negligent.
with a patient or the patient has not received prenatal care, such physician is not liable unless it is proven such physician is grossly negligent.
-
478 F. App'x 613 Eleventh Circuit June 5, 2012 No. 11-11588Cited by 3 Unpublished
NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS Lynch argues that the district court erred when it granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss because, 1) Lynch should not be required to submit an affidavit from a doctor when asserting a claim of negligence, 3
Because Lynch has not put forth non-conclusory statements that the doctors were professionally negligent, 4 the district court correctly dismissed Lynch’s Complaint against the doctors for negligence in both their official and
Before the district court, Lynch argued that his claim was not for professional negligence, but merely negligence. The district court treated Lynch's claims against the doctors as claims for professional negligence.
-
Ohio Court of Appeals March 11, 1999 No. 72361Not cited Unpublished
EVENTS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NEGLIGENCE OF SUBSEQUENT TREATING PHYSICIANS.
Trowbridge (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 11 , the chain of causation between a physicians negligent act can never be broken by the intervening negligence of subsequent treating physicians.
of the damages due directly to the independent negligence of the physician."
-
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 9978 Connecticut Superior Court September 29, 1994 No. 117721Not cited Unpublished
The plaintiff argues in opposition to the motion to cite in that a defendant is fully liable for the aggravation of a plaintiff's injury caused by the negligent treatment of a physician.
The rule in Connecticut with respect to subsequent tortfeasors is that "`an injured party can recover from an original tortfeasor for damages caused by the negligence of a doctor in treating the injury which the tortfeasor caused,
In some jurisdictions, the defendant responsible for the primary injury may bring a third party action for indemnification against the negligent doctor for the share of the damages attributable to the doctor's negligent treatment.
-
Third Circuit July 16, 2020 No. 19-3475Not cited Unpublished
They alleged that two doctors at the Wilmington Veterans Administration Medical Center committed medical negligence when they reviewed the 2014 and 2015 CT scans of Mr. Gaitens’s lungs.
After a bench trial, the District Court thoroughly and thoughtfully reviewed all the evidence and concluded that neither doctor was medically negligent.
According to Plaintiffs, the doctor mistook the eight-millimeter nodule for scarring in Mr. Gaitens’s left lung and was thus medically negligent.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.