Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

357 So. 2d 1345

Acosta v. Cary

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided April 11, 1978

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1978-04-11

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1987

2 state decisions

Relies on 168 So. 2d 107 - Dowling v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York · Ford v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-04-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GAUDIN, Judge.

¶1Plaintiff, Bernard R. Acosta, alleging invasion of privacy and breach of contract, filed the instant suit against several defendants. Before us now is an appeal from a dismissal by summary judgment of one of the defendants, Employers Mutual of Wau-sau, incorrectly named initially as Employees Insurance of Wausau. We affirm the trial judge’s action.

¶2The facts are these:

¶3On June 10,1971, Wausau had Mr. Acosta examined by Dr. George R. Cary, Jr. in connection with a workmen’s compensation claim.

¶4Upon receipt of a report, Wausau compensated the physician and his services were completed.

¶5In February, 1976, while Mr. Acosta was employed by Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Company, he sustained another injury and was examined, ironically, again by Dr. Cary.

¶6Following this examination, Dr. Cary forwarded medical data to Kaiser, including a copy of his June 10, 1971 report. This allegedly caused Mr. Acosta to be dismissed from his job.

¶7Mr. Acosta contends that a master-servant relationship existed between Wausau and Dr. Cary, and that Wausau had the power and duty to restrict dissemination of the 1971 report.

¶8However, Louisiana jurisprudence has long recognized the status of the doctor as an independent contractor and has severely limited the vicarious liability of his principal. See Dowling v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, La.App., 168 So.2d 107, and Ford v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co., La.App., 196 So. 403.

¶9In Dowling, a 1964 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal decision, a physician was retained by an insurance company to examine one of its insureds. Alleging .that the doctor did not inform him of various medical findings, the insured sued the company.

¶10We held that the physician’s relationship to the company was “. . . one of contract, or engagement to render a service as an independent contractor.”1 and we affirmed the district court’s sustaining of exceptions of no right or cause of action, which dismissed the company from the case.

¶11If Dr. Cary was an independent contractor, as indeed he was, we cannot hold Wau-sau answerable for Dr. Cary’s actions.

¶12Wausau was properly dismissed via summary judgment.

¶13AFFIRMED.

¶14. Dowling v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, La.App., 168 So.2d 107, at page 111.

/357/so2d/1345 · .json · Public domain