 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Manning v. Bellafiore11/4/2005
t alternatives of the differential diagnosis. Dr. Payne indicated that the goal of ruling out the different causes was never fulfilled, nor was it ever changed. He claims that Dr. McNiece further claimed to meet the standard of care by failing to meet with the patient or the wife directly, particularly after the plan "to perform an MRI" failed and the patient was still at risk. Dr. McNiece admitted responsibility for the patient but acknowledged that he deferred in part to Dr. Bellafiore. Paired with Dr. Bellafiore's representations to Dr. McNiece that he had already spoken to the family and discussed Mr. Manning's options, Dr. McNiece may have been justified in relying upon his fellow practitioner.
Dr. Bellafiore represented "the buck stops here." In the medical world, this does not absolve Dr. McNiece of any obligation to tend to the patient's needs; however, it verifies that Dr. McNiece relied on Dr. Bellafiore's representations and findings. Given Dr. Bellafiore's specialization, Dr. McNiece adopted his findings that the risk of an angiogram would be better than the benefit of the angiogram. Dr. McNiece attempted to communicate and keep up to date on the status of Mr. Manning. Dr. McNiece frankly recognized throughout that it was important to get the testing done within a timely fashion, that he was obligated to exercise his "independent medical judgment," and that an MRI is the "gold standard" for testing. But he indicated further that he gave Dr. Bellafiore "free reign."
The Court cannot conclude that the jury's verdict relative to Dr. McNiece is unsupported by the fair preponderance of the evidence. The jury was confronted with conflicting information concerning Dr. McNiece's liability. The jury determined that Dr. McNiece was not negligent. The jury was reasonable based on the substantial testimony -- including that of Dr. Bellafiore -- offered at trial. Weighing the evidence and examining the credibility of evidence, this Court finds that the verdict relative to Dr. McNiece responds to the merits of the case and is not against the fair preponderance of the evidence. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict for Dr. McNiece.
Hospital Liability
There was little, if any, evidence of actual negligence on the part of the hospital. Dr. Bellafiore and Dr. McNiece each established that they were independent contractors of the hospital. The Mannings did little to dispute the physicians' contractual relationships. Generally, one who enlists an independent contractor is not vicariously liable for the torts committed by the contractor during the course of the work, Webbier v. Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau, Inc., 105 R.I. 605, 254 A.2d 285 (1969).
The liability of South County Hospital is premised upon Dr. Bellafiore and Dr. McNiece being agents of the hospital, in some capacity. There is no outward, obvious act, or express agency agreement, to establish an agency agreement. In fact, the Mannings had independent relationships with Dr. McNiece as their family physician, prior to the hospital treatment.
A recent decision discusses the apparent authority of hospitals over independently contracted physicians. This analysis was rendered in a summary judgment context by Justice Thunberg, a highly respected member of this Court, Sadly, that case also involved a patient at South County Hospital who had passed away.
In Rhode Island the doctrine of apparent agency was intended to provide recourse to third parties who justifiably contract under the belief that another is an agent of a principal and detrimentally suffer as a result of that reliance. Butler v. McDonald's Corp., 110 F.Supp.2d 62, 68 (D.R.I. 2000) (citing
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|