Understanding Vicarious Liability In Medical Malpractice: A Deep Dive Into Statham V. Quang For Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys

On May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued a pivotal decision in Statham v. Quang et al., a case that clarifies the scope of vicarious liability for physicians supervising medical students during surgical procedures. This ruling, documented in the court’s opinion (S24G0842), is a must-read for Personal injury attorneys in Georgia, particularly those handling medical malpractice cases. For George Creal, whose practice focuses on advocating for clients injured due to negligence, this case offers critical insights into how to pursue claims against supervising physicians under the doctrine of respondeat superior, while also delineating the limitations of other legal theories like the borrowed servant doctrine and OCGA § 51-1-38 (medical student immunity). Below, we provide a comprehensive summary of the case, its legal implications, and practical takeaways for your practice.

Case Background: A Surgical Mishap and A Question of Liability

The Statham case stems from a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by plaintiff Jacqueline Statham following a hysterectomy performed on August 12, 2019. The surgery, conducted by Dr. David S. Quang, with assistance from Dr. Tan-Loc Nguyen and a medical student from the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (PCOM), went awry when the medical student, under the physicians’ supervision, improperly manipulated a sponge stick. Initially inserted into the plaintiff’s vagina to aid in the procedure, the sponge stick was later misplaced into her rectum, leading to an improper incision of her rectal wall. This error caused a rectovaginal fistula, a severe complication requiring further medical intervention.

Statham sued Dr. Quang, Dr. Nguyen, and their medical practice, Women’s Healthcare of Middle Georgia, P.C. (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging professional negligence, negligent supervision of the medical student, and vicarious liability for the medical student’s negligence. The crux of the vicarious liability claim was whether the supervising physicians could be held responsible for the medical student’s actions under Georgia law, specifically through OCGA § 51-1-38, general agency principles (respondeat superior), or the borrowed servant doctrine.

Procedural History: From Trial Court To Supreme Court

The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Defendants, summarily ruling that they could not be held vicariously liable for the medical student’s negligence. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in a divided panel, with the lead opinion (not joined by the other judges) concluding that neither OCGA § 51-1-38, general agency principles, nor the borrowed servant doctrine imposed vicarious liability on the physicians. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s ruling, focusing solely on the grant of partial summary judgment to the Defendants.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis: Parsing Vicarious Liability Theories

The Supreme Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Colvin, meticulously evaluates the three legal theories advanced by the plaintiff to establish vicarious liability. Below, we break down the court’s findings and their implications for each theory.

1. OCGA § 51-1-38: No Basis for Vicarious Liability

   OCGA § 51-1-38 is a Georgia statute that immunizes medical students from civil liability for acts or omissions committed while providing medical care under supervision, except in cases of willful or wanton misconduct. Subsection (b) clarifies that this immunity does not affect or limit the liability of supervising medical facilities, academic institutions, or physicians.

   The plaintiff argued that this statute could impose vicarious liability on the defendant physicians for the medical student’s negligence. The Supreme Court rejected this claim, emphasizing the statute’s plain language. Subsection (a) shields medical students from liability under specific circumstances, while subsection (b) ensures that the student’s immunity does not alter the liability of supervising entities or individuals as otherwise provided by law. The court clarified that OCGA § 51-1-38 neither imposes nor precludes vicarious liability; it simply preserves the status quo for physicians’ liability under other legal doctrines, such as respondeat superior.

   Takeaway for George Creal: When pursuing medical malpractice claims involving medical students, OCGA § 51-1-38 is not a direct avenue for establishing vicarious liability. Instead, focus on other tort principles, as the statute primarily protects students and does not alter physicians’ responsibilities.

2. The Borrowed Servant Doctrine: A Defense, Not a Basis for Liability

   The plaintiff also argued that the borrowed servant doctrine could render the defendant physicians vicariously liable for the medical student’s negligence. The borrowed servant doctrine, traditionally an exception to the doctrine of respondeat superior, allows a “general master” (e.g., an employer who lends an employee) to escape liability if a “special master” (e.g., the borrowing employer) assumes control over the employee’s actions at the time of the injury.

   The Supreme Court clarified that this doctrine operates as a defense to respondeat superior claims, not as an independent basis for imposing vicarious liability. In Georgia, the doctrine is used to shift liability from a general master to a special master when the special master has exclusive control over the servant’s actions. The court noted that no Georgia case has recognized the borrowed servant doctrine as a standalone theory for holding a defendant liable. Instead, liability for a borrowed servant’s actions must be established under respondeat superior, proving that the servant was acting as the special master’s agent within the scope of their business.

   In this case, the court found that the plaintiff’s reliance on the borrowed servant doctrine was misplaced because it does not provide a cause of action. The medical student’s status as a potential “borrowed servant” of the physicians would be relevant only if the defendants were defending against liability by arguing that another party (e.g., PCOM) was responsible. Since the plaintiff sought to hold the physicians liable directly, respondeat superior was the appropriate framework.

   Takeaway for George Creal: Avoid framing vicarious liability claims against supervising physicians under the borrowed servant doctrine, as it is a defensive tool, not an affirmative theory of recovery. Instead, build your case around respondeat superior, ensuring you establish the elements of a master-servant relationship.

3. Respondeat Superior: A Jury Question Remains

   The heart of the Supreme Court’s ruling lies in its analysis of vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a common-law principle codified in OCGA § 51-2-2. This doctrine holds a principal liable for the negligent acts of a servant committed in furtherance of the principal’s goals and within the scope of their business. For a medical student to be considered a “servant” of a supervising physician, the physician must have either the right to control or actual control over the student’s physical conduct, particularly the time, manner, and method of their work.

   The Court of Appeals’ lead opinion had concluded that the defendants were not vicariously liable under respondeat superior, relying heavily on a contract (the “Agreement”) between PCOM and the defendants’ medical practice. The Agreement stated that medical students were not employees or agents of the practice, received no compensation, and could be terminated by either party. The Court of Appeals treated these terms as dispositive, asserting that the contract controlled the relationship and negated any agency relationship.

   The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the Court of Appeals erred by focusing exclusively on the contract and ignoring evidence of actual control. While a contract can establish a right to control, respondeat superior liability can also arise from a principal’s assumption of control, regardless of contractual terms. Here, undisputed evidence showed that the defendant physicians:

   • Instructed the medical student to insert the sponge stick into the plaintiff’s vagina.
   • Visually confirmed the initial insertion.
   • Directed the student to manipulate the sponge stick during the surgery to aid in visualization and incision.

   This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the physicians assumed control over the medical student’s physical conduct, sufficient to establish a master-servant relationship. The court emphasized that factors like payment or formal employment are not prerequisites for a master-servant relationship, further undermining the Court of Appeals’ reliance on the Agreement’s terms.

   Because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the medical student was acting as the physicians’ servant, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings, likely requiring a jury to resolve the factual disputes.

   Takeaway for George Creal: Respondeat superior is the strongest avenue for pursuing vicarious liability against physicians supervising medical students. Focus on evidence of actual control—specific instructions, supervision, or direction during the procedure—rather than relying solely on contractual relationships. Even if a contract disclaims an agency relationship, evidence of assumed control can create a jury question, making summary judgment less likely for defendants.

Key Evidence And Contractual Considerations

The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the importance of evidence in vicarious liability cases. Key facts that influenced the court’s decision included:

• The Medical Student’s Role: The student’s actions (inserting and manipulating the sponge stick) were directly supervised by the physicians, who provided specific instructions and confirmed the initial insertion.
• The Agreement: While the contract between PCOM and the medical practice disclaimed an employment or agency relationship, it also granted the practice authority to supervise students, control patient care, and terminate student participation. These terms could support an inference of control, though the court did not rely on them given the evidence of actual control.
• Undisputed Harm: The parties agreed that the student’s misplacement of the sponge stick into the plaintiff’s rectum made the injury “more likely,” strengthening the causal link between the student’s actions and the plaintiff’s harm.

For George Creal, this underscores the need to thoroughly investigate the dynamics of supervision during medical procedures. Depositions of physicians, medical students, and other staff can uncover evidence of control, even if contracts attempt to limit liability.

Practical Implications For Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys

The Statham v. Quang decision offers several actionable insights for your practice, George Creal, as you represent clients in medical malpractice cases:

• Leverage Respondeat Superior: When a medical student’s negligence contributes to a client’s injury, prioritize respondeat superior as the primary theory for holding supervising physicians liable. Gather evidence of control, such as surgical records, physician testimony, or protocols showing direct supervision.
• Challenge Contractual Defenses: Defendants may rely on contracts to argue that medical students are not their agents. Counter this by focusing on actual control during the procedure. The Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that contractual disclaimers are not dispositive if evidence shows assumed control.
• Avoid Misapplying the Borrowed Servant Doctrine: Do not frame claims under the borrowed servant doctrine, as it is a defense, not a basis for liability. Instead, use respondeat superior to argue that the student was acting as the physician’s servant, regardless of their formal employment status.
• Understand OCGA § 51-1-38: Recognize that this statute protects medical students with tort or lawsuit immunity but does not alter physicians’ liability who supervised the medical student. Use it to argue that supervising physicians remain accountable under traditional tort principles.
• Prepare for Jury Trials: The court’s finding of a genuine issue of material fact suggests that vicarious liability claims involving medical students are likely to survive summary judgment if evidence of control exists. Prepare robust trial strategies, including expert testimony on standard surgical practices and supervision.

Broader Implications For Medical Malpractice Law

The Statham decision reinforces Georgia’s commitment to holding supervising physicians accountable for the actions of those under their direction, aligning with the principle that the party with control bears responsibility for preventing harm. By emphasizing actual control over contractual terms, the court ensures that plaintiffs have a fair opportunity to seek redress, even in complex medical training environments.

For academic medical settings, this ruling may prompt hospitals and medical practices to reevaluate their supervision protocols and contractual arrangements with medical schools. Clearer guidelines for student involvement in surgeries and stronger oversight could reduce the risk of errors and subsequent liability.

Conclusion: A Win for Plaintiffs and a Roadmap for George Creal

The Supreme Court’s reversal in Statham v. Quang is a significant victory for plaintiffs seeking to hold physicians accountable for the negligence of medical students under their supervision. By clarifying that respondeat superior is the appropriate framework and that evidence of actual control can override contractual disclaimers, the court provides a clear path for personal injury attorneys like George Creal to pursue these claims.

As you move forward with medical malpractice cases, focus on building a strong evidentiary record of supervision and control. This decision underscores the importance of thorough discovery and strategic pleading to ensure that genuine issues of material fact reach a jury. For your clients injured by medical negligence, Statham is a powerful tool to secure justice.

If you have specific questions about applying this case to your practice or need assistance analyzing related medical malpractice claims, feel free to reach out. Stay tuned for more updates on Georgia personal injury law!