From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Diggs v. Novant Health, Inc.
North Carolina Court of Appeals
628 S.E.2d 851 (2006)
Facts
Mary Louise Diggs (plaintiff) needed gall bladder surgery and chose a surgeon. This surgeon had hospital privileges at Forsyth Medical Center (Forsyth) (defendant), which was owned by Novant Health, Inc. (Novant) (defendant). Forsyth had a department of anesthesiology, but none of the department’s anesthesiologists were actually employed by Forsyth. Rather, the anesthesia department was staffed entirely by an independent group, Piedmont Anesthesia & Pain Consultants, P.A. (Piedmont) (defendant), that had an exclusive contract to provide all anesthesia services at Forsyth. When Diggs was admitted, she signed a form consenting to the services of “my physician” and the services of “the anesthetist/anesthesiologist responsible for this service.” Dr. Joseph McConville and nurse Sheila Crumb were the Piedmont employees who provided anesthesia care to Diggs for her surgery at Forsyth. However, Crumb had difficulty inserting a tube and punctured Diggs’s esophagus, severely and permanently injuring her. Diggs sued Piedmont, McConville, and Crumb for medical malpractice. Diggs also sued Forsyth and Novant, claiming they were vicariously liable for the anesthesia personnel’s negligence. The trial court dismissed the vicarious-liability claim against Forsyth and Novant, and Diggs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Geer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.