Please help me to reply on the two comments below: Comment 1: Based upon Chapter 9: Corporate Structure and Legal Issues: Independent Contractor: The Respondeat Superior - Hoffman V. Moore Regional Hospital - Page 187 only answer the following questions:

• Under what conditions could the hospital had been liable for Lina's alleged negligence?

Under no conditions the hospital could have been liable for the negligence of the radiologist because the radiologist was not an employee of thehospital, and besides the radiologist was an independent contractor responsible for their own actions. Technically, an employer is responsible for the activities of its employees while they are working. Independent contractors' acts are often not the responsibility of the employers.

• Can the patient recover damages from the radiologist who performed the radiologic procedure?

The patient cannot recover damages from the radiologist because the radiologist was working as part of a radiology group and therefore the radiologist was not under the supervision of the hospital. The patient' consent form did not state which radiologist performed the test; the consent listed five radiologists but not one specifically. To my opinion a lawsuit against Pinehurst Radiology group would have been more suitable.

• Can the patient recover damages from the Pinehurst radiology group?

As mentioned in the above answer, in my opinion, yes, the patient could have recovered damages from the Pinehurst radiology group as Lina was employed by this group. Because the radiologist (Lina) was employed by this group the master-servant relationship was present.

Pozgar, G. (2023).Legal Aspects of Health Administration, (MA: Jones & Bartlett), 14th.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 2: Based upon Chapter 9: Corporate Structure and Legal Issues: Independent Contractor: The Respondeat Superior - Hoffman V. Moore Regional Hospital - Page 187 only answer the following questions:

Under what conditions could the hospital had been liable for Lina's alleged negligence?

Negligence is a tort, a civil or personal wrong. It is the unintentional commission or omission of an act that a reasonably prudent person would or would not do under given circumstances. Negligence is a form of conduct caused by heedlessness or carelessness that constitutes a departure from the standard of care generally imposed on reasonable members of society (Pozgar, 2019, p. 43). The hospital could have been liable for Lina's alleged negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior if a master-servant relationship existed between the employer and the employee and the wrongful act of the employee must have occurred within the scope of his or her employment. The hospital employees had Hoffman sign a consent form for the procedure meaning that one of the hospital employees would be performing the renal arteriogram. The hospital could be liable for Lina's alleged negligence for having the patient sign the consent form stating that it would be one of the employees at the hospital performing the arteriogram (Pozgar, 2019, p. 186-187).

Can the patient recover damages from the radiologist who performed the radiologic procedure?

The patient could recover damages from the radiologist who performed the radiologic procedure. The radiologist had a duty to care in which the radiologist didn't conform to a recognized standard of care. The radiologist was responsible for caring for the patient appropriately in which the patient experienced complications during the procedure. The radiologist also failed to adhere to an obligation where the radiologist performed a breach of duty. The radiologist also caused injury to the patient because the patient experienced complications while undergoing the radiologic procedure in which her condition deteriorated at the hospital which eventually led to the patient's death. The radiologist also departed from the standard of care which caused the injury to the patient which was foreseeable if the radiologist was not an employee at the facility (Pozgar, 2019, p. 44).

Can the patient recover damages from the Pinehurst radiology group?

The patient could recover damages from the Pinehurst radiology group since their radiologist had a duty to care for a patient in which the radiologist failed to follow a standard of care. The radiologist also performed a breach of duty in which the radiologist failed to adhere to an obligation. The patient was injured by the radiologist during the radiologic procedure since the patient experienced complications and her condition declined substantially that resulted in her death. The radiologist also departed from the standard of care which was the cause of the patient's injury along with the causation being foreseeable. The Pinehurst radiology group would be able to provide damages to the patient since the radiologist who was liable fior alleged negligence worked at their facility (Pozgar, 2019, p. 44).

Reference:

Pozgar, G. D. (2019). Legal aspects of Health Care Administration. Jones & Bartlett Learning.