Abstract
This essay discusses the application of this new limitation to the field of medical malpractice, the divergent results reached by Ohio’s appellate courts in the medical negligence and malpractice context since Wuerth, and the various treatments by other jurisdictions. This essay argues that the holding in Wuerth narrowly applies only to law firms, and that applying it to medical malpractice results in a reversal of the settled Ohio law and injustice for those injured by the negligence of medical professionals. Part II examines the history of hospital liability and traces the changes in vicarious liability up to the Wuerth decision. Part III discusses the Wuerth case, laying out the foundation for a change in the accepted doctrines of medical malpractice. Part IV examines the various interpretations of Wuerth, the results of applying the narrow decision laid out in Wuerth to medical malpractice, and the policies behind respondeat superior that caution against this expanded interpretation of Wuerth’s holding. Part V of this essay concludes that Wuerth should not be applied in the medical malpractice context.
Recommended Citation
Wesig, Christy L.
(2012)
"Using It For All It's Wuerth: A Critical Analysis of National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh v. Wuerth as Applied to Medical Malpractice in Ohio,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 45:
Iss.
1, Article 7.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol45/iss1/7