Top Law Schools

If a hypo includes: a retired doctor in a small rural community comes out of retirement to begin practicing again. All of his licenses, etc are up to date. He is on call at the local ER, when someone who has been in a wreck is brought in (anemic patient, with broken arm, and several other issues). He successfully treats all of the patient's issue- except one, which will require additional surgeries. The one unnamed issue is something the doctor has not dealt with in a while & there is a more up-to-date procedure that the doctor was not aware of, which would likely have prevented the need for additional surgeries.

Is the doctor or local rural hospital owner likely to be liable for the doctors actions? And is the fact that the doctor had been recently been retired relevant if all of his required qualifications are current?

Both issues could be argued both ways.

Tom Joad wrote:Both issues could be argued both ways.

This. Have you been to day 1 of law school yet? Although there might be a binding answer in a particular jurisdiction, but at the level of generality you pose the question it's something you should argue about.

The answer to issue one will depend on whether the doctor deviated from what a doctor with ordinary knowledge, training and skill common to the profession would have done. This would require expert testimony.

The second issue would depend on vicarious liability. Was the doctor an employee of the hospital? Independent Contractor? Did he act under the apparent authority of the hospital?