Fletcher v. South Peninsula Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that notice of the doctor's independence given on multiple occasions during an extended course of treatment negated any manifestation of apparent authority
• observing that requirements of Rule 26, such as production of an expert report, do not apply to non-retained experts such as treating physicians
• finding that a consent form that stated “I recognize that all physicians and dentists who may be treating me are independent . . . and are not employees or agents of the hospital” was sufficient action by the hospital to dispel any appearance of employment, agency, or authority
• discussing non-delegable duty doctrine using vicarious liability terminology

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).