STATHAM v. QUANG

Jacqueline Statham was injured during a hysterectomy performed by Dr. David Quang with help from Dr. Tan-Loc Nguyen and a medical student who was maneuvering a surgical tool. Statham says the student moved the tool improperly, causing a cut that later led to a painful complication. She sued the doctors and their medical practice, arguing they should be legally responsible for the student's actions even though they didn't do the cutting themselves. A trial court and a divided Court of Appeals of Georgia panel ruled that the doctors could not be held responsible for the student's conduct as a matter of law, partly because a contract between the student's school and the doctors' practice said the student was not their employee or agent. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed. It held that the contract wasn't the whole story: what mattered was whether the doctors actually took control over how the student did her work during the surgery, and the evidence on that point was disputed enough that a jury, not a judge, needs to decide it.

A supervising physician can be vicariously liable for a medical student's negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior if the evidence shows the physician assumed control over the student's physical conduct during the procedure, regardless of what a training contract says about the relationship, and disputed evidence on that point must go to a jury.

The ruling affects how Georgia hospitals, medical practices, and teaching programs allocate legal risk when students and trainees assist in patient care. It clarifies that a written agreement disclaiming an employment relationship does not automatically shield supervising doctors from liability if they actually directed the trainee's hands-on work.

Reversed

1. The court examined Georgia's medical-student immunity statute (O.C.G.A. § 51-1-38) and concluded its plain text only shields students from personal liability in certain situations and does not itself make supervising doctors automatically liable or immune for a student's conduct.
2. The court explained the doctrine of respondeat superior, a longstanding rule that lets an injured person hold an employer or supervisor responsible for a worker's negligence if the worker was acting as the supervisor's 'servant' furthering the supervisor's business, which requires the supervisor to control or have the right to control the time, manner, and method of the work.
3. The court found the Court of Appeals wrongly treated the written training contract between the medical school and the practice as the final word on control, when the real question was whether the doctors, in practice, assumed control over the student's hands during the operation, not merely whether a contract labeled her an employee or agent.
4. Because the undisputed facts showed the doctors told the student where to place the surgical tool and directed her movements during the operation, the court found a genuine factual dispute existed about whether she was acting as their controlled servant, which only a jury can resolve.
5. The court separately explained that the 'borrowed servant' doctrine, which lets one employer avoid liability when another employer had taken over control of a shared worker, is only a defense against liability claims and cannot itself be used to create liability, so the doctors could not be found liable under that doctrine.

• vicarious liability
• medical student negligence
• surgery injury lawsuit
• respondeat superior
• borrowed servant doctrine