Case study

After reading chapter one, use your notes and the information you have learned to solve the situations provided in these two case studies. - 1. Dr. Webberjoined the Gelder Medical Group, which was a medical partnership. Part of the agreement was that if for any reason his association with the group ended, he would not practice medicine for five years within 30 miles of the Village ofSidney, where the partnership was located. The agreement also provided that any member could be required to withdraw from the partnership upon a majority vote of the other members. Dr. Webber's work with the group turned out to be unsatisfactory to his partners, who felt he was an embarrassment to the group. Dr. Webber refused to withdraw from the association after he was terminated by the other physicians. Two months later. despite his earlier agreement, Dr. Webber opened a medical office in Sidney. The partnership brought suit to prevent him from carrying on his practice. Could they do this successfully? 2. Brackenridge Hospital admitted Plaintiff to its intensive care unit following a serious car accident. Medical resident Dr. Villafani and attending physician Dr. Harshaw performed a tracheostomy and inserted a breathing tube. Several days later, plaintiff experienced bleeding from the surgical wound. Dr. Villafani examined plaintiff but did not immediately share plaintiff '5 condition with Dr. Harshaw. Plaintiff went into cardiac and respiratory arrest resulting in permanent and severe brain damage. At the time of plaintiff's treatment, Dr. Villafani was enrolled in a general surgery residency program operated by St. Joseph's Hospital. Central Texas Medical Foundation, an institution participating with St. Joseph's placed Dr. Villafani at Brackenridge Hospital, and had a contractual agreement with St. Joseph's to do so. The Foundation and Brackenridge dictated the details of how and when Dr. Villafani performed his residency responsibilities while at Brackenridge. The contract between St. Joseph's and the Foundation prevented St. Joseph's from having any direct control over Dr. Villafani's work while at Brackenridge. Plaintiff sued several defendants, including St. Joseph's, who was found vicariously liable for plaintiff's injuries under the theory of respondent superior. On appeal. the court reversed. Who. if anyone, should be held vivaciously liable for Dr. Villafani's treatment of plaintiff