333, 337 (10th Cir.1983). In Lurch, a case similar to the one before us, the plaintiff sued the Veterans Administration hospital under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging that a surgeon’s negligence caused his hearing loss. In dicta, we noted that Because a physician must exercise his own professional judgment, no one controls the detailed physical performance of his duties. Given this, by strictly following the traditional control test it is doubtful whether a physician could ever be found to be a federal employee under the FTCA. 719 F.2d at 337. Although the application of a “modified control” test “seems logical” in this situation, we did not adopt such a test in Lurch because the issue was not before us. Id. at 337-38. But see Quilico v. Kaplan, 749 F.2d 480, 484-85 (7th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). While the defendant urges us to adopt
holding that there was no joint venture as a matter of law between physicians who agreed to be oncall for one another at a hospital in the absence of evidence that the physicians controlled each others professional judgment in the treatment of patients holding strict control test inapplicable in determining the scope of immunity for physicians under federal law because medical ethics require physicians to exercise independent judgment in the best interest of their patients holding physicianpatient privilege does not apply to nurses or other medical staff working under physicians supervision or acting as physicians agent holding that emtala does pot give patients a private cause of action against their physicians holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations