Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Medical Jurisprudence
Physicians And Surgeons—Malpractice—Court Disregard For The Standard Of The Profession—The Legislative Response—Helling V. Carey, 83 Wn. 2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974); Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.290 (Supp. 1975), Alan J. Peizer
Washington Law Review
This note will examine the relationship between the standard of care and the role of expert medical testimony in medical malpractice actions, discuss various interpretations of the Helling decision, and suggest the most practical of those interpretations, particularly in light of the subsequent enactment of R.C.W. § 4.24.290.5 The purpose of this statute was to nullify the Helling decision and re-establish the pre-Helling standards of negligence in medical malpractice cases. As will be demonstrated, although the statute in large part succeeds in allaying the fears of medical practitioners and defense attorneys which were induced by Helling v. Carey, the case …
The Hospital-Physician Relationship: Hospital Responsibiity For Malpractice Of Physicians, Joel D. Cunningham
The Hospital-Physician Relationship: Hospital Responsibiity For Malpractice Of Physicians, Joel D. Cunningham
Washington Law Review
Since 1957 the courts in most states have moved rapidly toward imposing vicarious liability on a hospital for the torts of employee-physicians. In 1965 the Illinois Supreme Court held that a hospital could be liable for the malpractice of a nonemployee-physician. This comment attempts to describe these trends, to delineate the new rules the courts are applying and to determine the rationale for adopting these new rules. The comment assumes the patient has established that the physician committed malpractice; the only issue addressed is whether the patient can recover from the hospital for his or her injuries. The scope is …
Physicians And Surgeons—Malpractice—Informed Consent Of Patient: Duty To Inform Patient To Be Established By Expert Medical Testimony—Zebarth V. Swedish Hospital Medical Center, 81 Wn. 2d 12, 499 P.2d 1 (1972), L. D. K.
Washington Law Review
Plaintiff was suffering from a highly malignant form of cancer resulting in serious obstruction of the trachea. He was admitted to the defendant hospital where it was determined that radiation therapy was necessary to reduce the obstruction before it completely blocked the plaintiff's breathing. After completion of the radiation therapy, plaintiff began to suffer from a progressive paralysis which plaintiff claimed was caused by damage to his spinal cord, attributable to the manner in which the radiation was administered. Plaintiff sued in the Superior Court for King County, alleging that since he was neither warned of the risk of damage …