finding a physician-patient relationship between an emergency room patient and an "on call" physician who had been consulted by the emergency room physician over the telephone and participated in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient
How later courts described this case
- finding a physician-patient relationship between an emergency room patient and an "on call" physician who had been consulted by the emergency room physician over the telephone and participated in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient
- finding physician-patient relationship between patient and on-call physician consulted over the telephone who participated in diagnosis and treatment of patient
- holding that the existence of a duty "depends upon whether there was a physician-patient relationship"
- lack of direct contact between physician and patient does not preclude the finding of a physician-patient relationship
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Lownsbury v. VanBuren, 94 Ohio St. 3d 231 (2002)
” St. John v. Pope, 901 SW2d 420, 424 (Tex 1995); see McKinney v. Schlatter, 692 NE2d 1045, 1050-51 (Ohio Ct App 1997), overruled on other grounds by Lownsbury v. VanBuren, 762 NE2d 354, 362 (Ohio 2002) (holding that it was a question of fact for the jury whether an on-call cardiologist who had discussed a patient’s symptoms and test results with an emergency room physician entered into a physicián-patient relationsh…
The opinion
Koehler, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I believe the on-call cardiologist, Dr. Solomito, by rendering advice to the primary physician, became a party to the physician-patient relationship, and
*340
therefore the first assignment of error was well taken. The evidentiary questions raised by appellant likewise have merit. Accordingly, I dissent from the holding on the second and third assignments of error.