MALPRACTICE ACTIONS AND COMPENSATION ACTS

Authors

Paul A. Leidy, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

S, an employee, is injured as the result of the negligence of his employer, M; S is taken for treatment to the office of X, a competent physician or surgeon selected by S or by M; on this particular occasion X is negligent and as a result of X's negligence S's two weeks' injury is aggravated and the period of disability becomes one of two months' duration. At common law, inasmuch as the original injury was one for which M was legally responsible, S could recover from M for the entire disability-that resulting directly from the original negligence of M and that produced by the negligence of the physician. But the fact that S could recover from his employer did not, in itself, react in favor of the negligent doctor. X was of course liable to S for the result of his, X's, negligence-here some six weeks of disability. Assume, now, that both S and Mare "under the Compensation Act." While in "the course of his employment" S receives an injury which clearly "arises out of" the employment. S is again taken to the offices of X; X is negligent; the original injury is aggravated, as before. What effect, if any, should the Workmen's Compensation Act have on the rights of the twice-injured employee? Specifically, in view of the common law alternative remedies above suggested, what is the effect under these facts on S's rights (1) against the employer, M, and (2) against the physician, X?

Recommended Citation

Paul A. Leidy, MALPRACTICE ACTIONS AND COMPENSATION ACTS, 29 Mich. L. Rev. 568 (1931).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol29/iss5/3