COMPENDIUM

1. Gilbert v. Sycamore Mun. Hosp. 190 Ill. Dec. 758

Supreme Court of Illinois.

October 21, 1993.

*790 Bernard R. Nevoral, Paul W. Pasche and David L. Cwik of Bernard R. Nevoral &
Associates, Ltd., Chicago, for appellant.

Steven E. Garstki and Stewart D. Stoller, Stoller & Garstki, Chicago, for amicus curiae
Illinois Trial Lawyers Ass'n.

Franklin C. Cook, Freeport (Robert R. McWilliams, Kostantacos, Traum, Reuterfors &

McWilliams, P.C., Rockford, of counsel), for appellee.

Justice FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

The question presented for review is whether a hospital can be found vicariously liable for
the negligence of a physician who is not a hospital employee, but rather an independent
contractor. We hold that a hospital may be vicariously liable in such a case under the doctrine
of apparent authority.

BACKGROUND

The record contains the following pertinent evidence. On April 8, 1981, defendant, Sycamore
Municipal Hospital (hospital), in Sycamore, Illinois, was a full service, acute care facility.
The hospital's active staff consisted of 14 to 20 physicians including Irving Frank, M.D. Dr.
Frank was a general practitioner.

Many of the hospital's active staff physicians practiced through professional associations. Dr.
Frank was the founder and president of one such group, Kishwaukee Medical Associates,
Ltd. (KMA). Five to eight physicians practiced through KMA.

The hospital considered its active staff physicians to be independent contractors. The hospital
did not pay them any salary. The record shows, for example, that the hospital did not pay Dr.
Frank any business expense, or pay his social security taxes, or provide him with insurance,
vacation, or sick leave. The hospital did not control his diagnosis or treatment. Dr. Frank set
his own fees, billed separately for services rendered, kept the profits and bore the losses from
his practice, and determined his own work schedule, salary, vacations, and maximum
absences.

Various practice areas in the hospital had a quality assurance review committee that would
meet regularly to review cases, statistics, and medical treatment generally. (E.g., an
emergency room committee, an operating room committee, etc.) Committee members
included active staff physicians, hospital employees, and a representative of hospital
administration. If the hospital did not approve of a physician's conduct, a hospital
representative would speak to the physician.
Indian Advocates Act, 1961 (s-49-1-gg)
An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for the
constitution of the Bar Councils and an All-India Bar.
Sec 49. General power of the Bar Council of India to make rules.
[(1)] The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act,
and, in particular, such rules may prescribe
[(gg) the form of dresses or robes to be worn by advocates, having regard to the climatic
conditions, appearing before any court or tribunal;]

PART - VI of the INDIAN BAR RULES

RULES GOVERNING ADVOCATES

FORM OF DRESSES OR ROBES TO BE WORN BY

ADVOCATES*
(Rules under Section 49 (I) (gg) of the Act)
Advocates appearing in the Supreme Court, High Courts, Subordinate Courts, Tribunals or
Authorities shall wear the following as part of their dress, which shall be sober and dignified. *
1. ADVOCATES
(a) A black buttoned up coat, chapkan, achkan, black sherwani and white bands with
Advocates Gowns.
(b) A black open breast coat. white shirt, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands with
Advocates Gowns.
In either case wear long trousers (white, black striped or grey) Dhoti excluding jeans.
Provided further that in courts other than the Supreme Court, High Courts, District Courts,
Sessions Courts or City Civil Courts, a black tie may be worn instead of bands.
II. LADY ADVOCATES
(a) Black full sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar stiff or soft, with white bands and
Advocates Gowns.
White blouse, with or without collar, with white bands and with a black open breast coat.
Or
(b) Sarees or long skirts (white or black or any mellow or subdued colour without any print
or design) or flare (white, black or black stripped or grey) or Punjabi dress Churidar Kurta
or Salwar-Kurta with or without dupatta (white or black) or traditional dress with black
coat and bands.
III. Wearing of Advocates' gown shall be optional except when appearing in the Supreme Court
or in High Courts.
IV. Except in Supreme Court and High Courts during summer wearing of black coat is not
mandatory.

In the change brought about in the Dress Rules, there appears to be some confusion in so far as
the Sub Courts are concerned. For removal of any doubt it is clarified that so far as the courts
other than Supreme Court and High Court are concerned during summer while wearing black
coat is not mandatory, the advocates may appear in white shirt with black, white striped or gray
pant with black tie or band and collar

Consumer Protection Regulations 2005

Government of India
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2005 .

NOTIFICATION
G.S.R. 342(E). - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 30A of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission with the previous approval of the Central Government,
hereby makes the following regulations, namely:-
4. Dress code.-(1 ) The President and members of every Consumer Forum while
presiding over the Benches,-

(a) shall wear simple and sober dress;

(b) shall not wear-

(i) flashy dress or dress display any affluence;

(ii) Jeans or T-shirts.

(iii) as if they are holding Courts as Judges of a High Court or a District

Court.

(2) The advocates shall be allowed to appear in the usual dress as prescribed by
the High
Court but without the gown.
A plaintiff ( in legal shorthand) is the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an action)
before a court. By doing so, the plaintiff seeks a legal remedy, and if successful, the court will
issue judgment in favor of the plaintiff and make the appropriate court order (e.g., an order
for damages). "Plaintiff" is the term used in civil cases in most English-speaking jurisdictions, the
notable exception being England and Wales, where a plaintiff has, since the introduction of
the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999, been known as a "claimant", but that term also has other
meanings. In criminal cases, the prosecutor brings the case against the defendant, but the key
complaining party is often called the "complainant".

A petitioner is a person who pleads with governmental institution for a legal remedy or a redress
of grievances, through use of a petition.
The petitioner may seek a legal remedy if the state or another private person has acted
unlawfully. In this case, the petitioner, often called a plaintiff, will submit a plea to a court to
resolve the dispute.

According to Case Type: The user has to give the details of case according to case type. Then user

will be asked to choose the following case type:

Case Type Number
Consumer Case 1
Appeal Execution 2
Execution Revision Petition 3
First Appeal 4
Revision Petition 5
Execution Application 6
Caveat Case 7
Interlocutory Application 8
Transfer Application 9
Review Application 10
Miscellaneous Application 11