Buck v. Blum

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that while physician’s alleged sexual assault of patient “was inappropriate, it cannot be fathomed that the action was in furtherance of the employer’s business or for the accomplishment of an object for which he was employed”
• holding neurologist performing behind-the back arm-strength test was not acting within scope of employment when he placed his penis in the patient’s hand and told her to squeeze it
• noting appellate courts apply de novo standard of review to issue of applicability of chapter 74 to plaintiff’s claim
• noting appellate courts apply de novo standard of review to issue of applicability of chapter 74 to plaintiff’s claim
• rejecting plaintiff’s argument that neurologist’s answers to interrogatories could be used as evidence against co-defendant employer to create fact issue as to whether he was acting in course and scope of his employment when he committed alleged assault and battery against plaintiff
• allegation defendants failed to properly supervise employee physician essentially was allegation of violation of standard of care

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).