Medical Student A Servant?

A doctor who supervised a medical student in performing a procedure may be liable to the injured plaintiff, according to an opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court

we agree with the Court of Appeals’ lead opinion that OCGA § 51-1-38 (a statute that immunizes medical students from civil liability under certain circumstances) did not provide a basis for holding the defendant physicians vicariously liable. We also agree with the lead opinion’s ultimate conclusion that the defendant physicians could not be held vicariously liable under the borrowed servant doctrine, albeit for different reasons than those expressed in the Court of Appeals’ lead opinion. As we explain below, the defendant physicians could not be held vicariously liable under the borrowed servant doctrine because that doctrine operates as a defense to a claim of vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, not as an independent basis for imposing vicarious liability on a defendant. But we disagree with the lead opinion’s conclusion that, as a matter of law, the defendant physicians could not be held vicariously liable for the medical student’s negligence under general agency principles. As explained below, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a general principle of agency law, a physician can be vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omission of a medical student under his supervision if the evidence shows that, when the injury occurred, the medical student was acting as the physician’s “servant” in furtherance of the physician’s goals and within the scope of the physician’s business. And because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the defendant physicians were vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for any negligence committed by the medical student, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to the defendants on the issue of vicarious liability.

The lawsuit involves allegations of injuries that occurred in a hysterectomy.

On August 12, 2019, Dr. Quang performed “a total laparoscopic hysterectomy with left salpingo-oophorectomy” on Plaintiff. During the procedure, Dr. Nguyen assisted Dr. Quang. And a medical student, who was a student at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (“PCOM”), assisted the defendant physicians. The medical student’s role in the procedure was to insert a sponge stick into Plaintiff’s vagina as directed by Dr. Quang and to maneuver the sponge stick as directed by the defendant physicians in order to lift Plaintiff’s bladder up, help the defendant physicians visualize Plaintiff’s anatomy, and help guide Dr. Quang to the appropriate location for incision. The defendant physicians visually confirmed that the medical student had initially inserted the sponge stick into Plaintiff’s vagina. But at some point during the procedure, the medical student removed the sponge stick from Plaintiff’s vagina and placed it in Plaintiff’s rectum, which made Plaintiff’s injury “more likely.”

(Mike Frisch)