Patient not notified that doctor was an independent contractor: Court of Appeals
In Ford v. Jawaid, 22A04-1506-CT-575, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 95, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the summary judgment and ruled that a man was never notified that the doctor treating him was an independent contractor and not an employee of the hospital. The man’s vicarious liability case has been remanded back to the trial court.
In 2009, Robert Ford experienced pain and swelling in his leg and was then diagnosed with a large blood clot. He was then admitted to the Floyd Memorial Hospital and Health Services where he was treated by Dr. Shad Jawaid and was released after two days. Later, he got treated at different hospitals as well, but still continued having health issues due to the blood clot.
In 2011, Ford filed a medical malpractice complaint and later in 2013, amended it with the Indiana Department of Insurance. The medical review panel in its inquiry found out that Jawaid failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care, and that his conduct was a factor, but the hospital was not found to be at fault for Ford’s injuries.
Later in 2014, Ford filed a medical malpractice complaint against the hospital and the hospital filed for summary judgment. Ford submitted plenty of evidences to support his claims, which were mostly struck down post motions from the hospital. Subsequently, the court granted hospital’s motion for summary judgment and Ford appealed.
While deciding the case, the Court of Appeals stated that the trial court did not err in dismissing most of Ford’s evidence because each of the documents was unsworn and unverified. Ford had also claimed hospital’s direct liability for negligence. However, the plaintiff needed expert testimony in order to prove negligence and Ford did not have any. Thus, Court of Appeals held that the court was right in granting summary judgment on the negligence claim.
However, the Court of Appeals also found out that granting summary judgment to the hospital on Ford’s vicarious liability claim was not justified, as Ford was not properly informed that Jawaid was not an employee but an independent contractor at the hospital. Although, Ford signed a form that mentioned that some doctors may be independent contractors and not employees at the hospital, it failed to mention which doctors would be independent contractors. The hospital authorities also failed to inform Ford about the same.
Related Content
Indo-US Legal Sector Redefined: Consulate General of India, New York, SEPC India, and Draft n Craft Join Forces.
NEW YORK, UNITED STATES, June 29, 2023-The Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference, a groundbreaking event aimed at fostering...
Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference to Unite Legal Professionals from India and the United States
Indo-US Legal Sector – Redefining Relationships Conference to Unite Legal Professionals from India and the United States This...
Importance of Medical Records Summaries in Mass Tort Litigation
Mass torts cases are complex and often involve multiple plaintiffs who have suffered harm from the same product...
Care Plus and its Entities Agree to Pay $7.2 Million Against Anti-Kickback Allegations
On April 13, 2022, Care Plus Management, LLC (“Care Plus”), its founders Paul D. Weir and John R....
Copper Creek (Marysville) | Washington Court of Appeals on Effect of Bankruptcy Discharge on Statute of Limitations
On April 11, 2022, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 granted the motion for reconsideration and...
Federal District Court, California Dismisses Class Action Suit for Lack of Specific Jurisdiction
On April 01, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled in dismissal of...
Southern District of Florida Grants Motion to Dismiss in Mass Class Action
On April 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has granted motion...
First Department Ordered New Trial in Personal Injury Damages Lawsuit
On March 29, 2022, the Appellate Division, First Department, decided in Miller v. Camelot Communications Group, Inc., 2022...
Supreme Court of Georgia Rules out Product Liability due to Third Party’s Wrongful Behavior
The Supreme Court of Georgia on March 15, 2022, decided in Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., Case that a...
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): Employers fate to be decided in 2022
On December 15, 2021, the United States Supreme Court announced to review the most consequential PAGA case Viking...
New Jersey Lawmakers Advance Bill To Allow Pandemic Insurance
A New Jersey Assembly committee on Wednesday advanced legislation that would permit insurers to offer coverage to policyholders...
Tech groups criticize Florida’s social media law as Unconstitutional.
Tech groups criticize Florida's social media law as unconstitutional.
New York ‘HERO’ Act requires employers to establish airborne infectious disease safety protocols.
The New York HERO Act (S.1034-B/A.2681-B), a critical bill requiring businesses to have enforceable safety standards to prevent...
Cost-padding, profit shedding law firms! Are you one of them?
Cost padding happens when a business deliberately inflates its costs than what it has incurred and then passes...
Handy Tips while taking Depositions in Medical Malpractice/Personal Injury Cases
Depositions are time-consuming but play a key role in the outcome of a lawsuit. Being prepared can help...
New Asbestos Trust Claim Disclosure and Evidence Statute A.R.S. § 12-782 enacted
The Arizona legislature has approved House Bill 2603 by a Republican majority, making it harder for the workers...
Supporting an underwriter company for attending physician statement (APS) Summary Support
One of our recent clients, an underwriter company wanted to hire a team of doctors and paramedics who...
Supreme Court Agrees to Reconsider Automotive Dealership Service Advisors’ Exempt Status under FLSA
The retail automotive dealerships enjoy a special exemption for overtime under Section 13(b)(10)(A) of the FLSA. DOL has...
