AMI 1503 Imputed Conduct

Insert “a nurse,” “an orderly,” “a technician,” etc. If the defendant physician, surgeon or dentist is alleged to be responsible for the acts of a physician, surgeon or dentist acting under his or her direct supervision and control, insert “another physician,” “another surgeon,” or “another dentist”.

If the medical care provider is admitted to be an employee of the defendant employer, and the defendant employer is a business entity, use AMI 208.

When this instruction is used, AMI 207 and 701 should also be used.

If the patient is referred to another physician, surgeon, dentist or medical care provider not under the direct supervision and control of the defendant, use AMI 1505.

If the action is based on an individual medical care provider’s improper delegation of authority to or failure to properly instruct another person, use AMI 1501.

If the medical care provider is an institution, some pronouns must be modified.

In cases with claims accruing on or after March 25, 2003, when a medical care provider is a codefendant with a medical care facility, and the only reason for naming the facility as a defendant is that the defendant medical care provider practices in the facility, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant medical care provider is the employee of the facility before the facility may be held liable for the medical care provider’s negligence. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-210. In this situation, this instruction should not be used, and AMI 207 and 701 should be used.

A physician may be found to be an agent of a for-profit clinic or hospital where he practices. Medi-Stat, Inc. v. Kusturin, 303 Ark. 45, 792 S.W.2d 869, aff’d on reh’g 303 Ark. 45, 798 S.W.2d 438 (1990). If the medical care provider is an employee of the defendant employer, then the defendant employer is vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the negligence of the medical care provider. Chicago, R.I. and P. R. Co. v. Britt, 189 Ark. 571, 74 S.W.2d 398 (1934). A charitable or non-profit employer is not vicariously liable for the negligence of a physician working there. Thomas v. Sessions, 307 Ark. 203, 818 S.W.2d 940 (1991); Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. Pearson, 98 Ark. 399, 135 S.W. 917 (1908).

The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply between physicians who are not themselves x-ray specialists and x-ray specialists they employ to assist them in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Runyan v. Goodrum, 147 Ark. 481, 228 S.W. 397 (1921). However, the doctrine does apply between physicians who are x-ray specialists and x-ray technicians they employ to assist them. Gray v. McLaughlin, 207 Ark. 191, 179 S.W.2d 686 (1944).