Doctrine of Apparent Authority Many medical malpractice suits would always point out negligence of a physician exhibited during the course of treatment which led to a damage. However, not only the physicians are held liable on these particular situations but also the institution the physician has practiced. It has always been a part of a medical malpractice case to question if a certain institution that a physician works at should be also liable of the damages made. Most of the time, in order to prove that hospitals are also accountable, Doctrine of Apparent Authority is applied. Doctrine of Apparent Authority (also referred as Doctrine of Ostensible authority, doctrine of ostensible agency or agency by estoppel) denotes an authority/power …show more content…
A buyer would rely to a real estate agent in order to acquire such property. Any actions of the agent would not only represent itself alone but also the company it works for. So, if there happened to be a misunderstanding between the buyer and the agent, the company in general is also liable and is expected to interfere for such situation. This doctrine was also applied in the court ruling G.R. No. 171228: SAN JUAN DEDIOS HOSPITAL vs. NELSON CORTEJO. In the case, there happened a death of an 11-year-old boy due to a misdiagnosis and medical negligence of Dr. Casumpang, a consultant in San Juan Dedios Hospital. SJDH petitioned that they should not be liable of the damages brought upon and that Dr. Casumpang should only be held liable of the issue. Specific points where pointed out on SJDH’s petition: • Dr. Casumpang is not an employee of …show more content…
No. 171127 (2015), the following elements are considered: For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; (2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence2. In reference to the case, the respondent, Noel Cortejo, the father of the 11-year-old boy, have emphasized that he doesn’t know any doctor on SDJH and that he relied on the hospital institution alone. In addition, Cortejo didn not have an option to choose a specific physician because it happened to be that Dr. Casumpang is the only doctor that fit under his health care insurance, Fortune Care. This means that the respondent has no personal intentions of hiring Dr. Casumpang as the attending physician of his child but simply relied on the given circumstances. Also, Cortejo has no knowledge that Dr. Casumpang is an independent contractor of the hospital but naively believed that he is an employee of SDJH. Cleary, a case of
Medical malpractice has been a controversial issue in the healthcare setting for centuries. Apparently, there are laws to protect patients’ from medical mistakes and errors that are the result of negligence. After researching various laws and medical liability cases based on allegations of negligence, this paper will discuss and provide details on the medical malpractice case of Dorrence Kenneth versus Charleston Community Memorial Hospital. The case analysis will briefly explain information from the beginning to end, including: laws that were violated, codes in the healthcare industry that were breached by the physician and Charlesto...
While working at the OB-GYN department in the hospital, Dr. Vandall, as a Vice Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, learned that another employee of the hospital, Dr. Margaret Nordell was engaged in a level of treatment that was unethical and violated accepted standards of care. It was his duty to the hospital and to the patients, to monitor the competence of his staff members. Although he tried to take the proper steps to deal with it within the hospital, he ended up reporting this to the North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners. It was concluded by the Board that the treatment of Dr. Nordell was gross negligence and they suspended her license to practice medicine.
In the plaintiff’s suit, he alleged the surgery did not go well because the hospital had hired a surgeon, who was not competent or qualified enough to perform the surgery therefore; the hospital was just as negligent as the doctor was. Before the trial date, Dr. Salinsky and his insurance company, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, settled with plantiff out of court on the basis they will be released from the suit upon payment of $140,000 (Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital). Although, Salinsky settled with plaintiff prior to trial, there was still “question of whether he was negligent in the manner in which he performed the operation on July 11, 1975, remained an issue at trial, as it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that Salinsky was negligent in this respect to establish a
“One of those obligations is that it must exercise a proper degree of care for its patients, and, to the extent that it fails in that care, it should be liable in damages as any other commercial firm would be
Learning from what Dr. Anna Pou had to face with the lawsuits she was dealing with makes me cringe. As Healthcare professionals, having to worry of possibly being sued for believing what is right for the patient or as a whole for the hospitals health is ridiculous. Healthcare professionals like Dr. Pou, have taken the Hippocratic oath, and one of the promises made within that oath is “first, do no harm”. Often time’s society look at courts cases as a battle versus two oppositions, but Dr. Pou’s case it is not. In her statements from national television she states saying her role was to ‘‘help’’ patients ‘‘through their pain,’’.
Nursefinders argues that the causes of action based on respondent superior liability failed because Drummond was a special employee of Kaiser or acted outside the course and scope of her employment. they also asserted that no triable issues listed on Montague’s negligence claim and the lack of cable cause of action precluded a derivative loss of consortium claim.
Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction are the poor-quality patient care that Tomcik received and Tomcik’s health being at risk. Once engaged in a doctor-patient relationship, physicians are obligated to provide the best possible care for the patient by utilizing their skills and knowledge as expected from a competent physician under the same or similar conditions (“What Is a Doctor’s Duty of Care?” n.d.). However, in Tomcik’s situation, Dr. Evans did not deliver high-quality care, for he administered a perfunctory breast examination and thus did not follow standard protocols. There is evidence of indifference conveyed by Dr. Evans, and the lack of proper care towards Tomcik is an issue that can be scrutinized and judged appropriately. Additionally, Tomcik’s health was at risk due to the failure of a proper physical evaluation and the incredibly long delay in diagnosis and treatment. The negligence from Dr. Evans, along with the lack of medical attention sought out by Tomcik after she had first discovered the lump in her breast, may contribute to Tomcik’s life being in danger as well as the emotional anguish she may have felt during that time period. Overall, the incident of Tomcik’s expectations from the original physician and other employees at the institution not being met is an ethical issue that should be dealt with
Mrs. Ard brought a wrongful death law suit against the hospital (Pozgar, 2014). The original verdict found in favor of Mrs. Ard, but the hospital appealed the court’s ruling (Pozgar, 2014). During the course of the appeal, an investigation of the records showed no documentation, by a nurse; of a visit to Mr. Ard during the time that Mrs. Ard stated she attempted to contact a nurse (Pozgar, 2014). The nurse on duty stated that she did check on Mr. Ard during that time; however, there were no notes in the patient’s chart to backup the claim that Mr. Ard had been checked on (Pozgar, 2014). One expert in nursing, Ms. Krebs, agreed that there was a failure in the treatment of Mr. Ard by the nurse on duty (Pozgar, 2014). ...
In the United States, healthcare fraud and abuse are significant factor associated with increasing health care costs. It is estimated that federal government spends billions of dollars on the health care cost (Edwards & DeHaven, 2009). Despite the seriousness of fraud and abuse offenses, increasing numbers of healthcare providers are seeking new and more profitable ways to build business relationships. These relationships include hospital mergers, hospital-physician joint ventures, and different types of hospital-affiliated physician networks to cover the rising cost of health care (Showalter, 2007, p 111-114). When these types of arrangements are made, legal issues surrounding the relationship often raise. There are five important Federal fraud and abuse laws that apply to the relationship and to physicians are the False Claims Act (FCA), the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark law), the Exclusion Authorities, and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL) and (Office of Inspector General (OIG), 2010). Out of five most important laws that apply to the relationship and the physicians, we are going to focus on the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark law).
Medical error occurs more than most people realize and when a doctor is found negligent the patient has the right to sue for compensation of their losses. Debates and issues arise when malpractice lawsuits are claimed. If a patient is filing for a medical malpractice case, the l...
The children had incurred numerous needles and painful hospital admissions, investigations, and procedures because of a false story and factitious signs...the falsification was not by the patient themselves but by another person "acting on their behalf" which is a proxy (502).
Medical malpractice cases are difficult for the families who have lost their loved one or have suffered from severe injuries. No one truly wins in complicated court hearings that consist of a team of litigation attorneys for both the defendant and plaintiff(s). During the trial, evidence supporting malpractice allegations have to be presented so that the court can make a decision if the physician was negligent resulting in malpractice, or if the injury was unavoidable due to the circumstances. In these types of tort cases, the physician is usually a defendant on trial trying to prove that he or she is innocent of the medical error, delay of treatment or procedure that caused the injury. The perfect example of being at fault for medical malpractice as a result of delaying a procedure is the case of Waverly family versus John Hopkins Health System Corporation. The victims were not compensated enough for the loss of their child’s normal life. Pozgar (2012) explained….
The Lewis Blackman Case: Ethics, Law, and Implications for the Future Medical errors in decision making that result in harm or death are tragic and costly to the families affected. There are also negative impacts to the medical providers and the associated institutions (Wu, 2000). Patient safety is a cornerstone of higher-quality health care and nurses serve as a communication link in all settings which is critical in surveillance and coordination to reduce adverse outcomes (Mitchell, 2008). The Lewis Blackman Case 1 of 1 point accrued
The hospital under vicarious liability is based on Respondeat Superior (let the master answer) for the negligence actions of its contractors/employees. This is the responsibility of physicians for negligent actions of hospital employees ranging from nurses to x-ray techs. Through Corporate Liability the hospital itself is liable for the negligent actions of its workers.
On the other hand, the punitive damages may be unlimited if the malpractice is proven to be done on purpose and full intent (Medical Malpractice,