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 relationship with the person seeking treatment
How later courts described this case
- 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 relationship with the person seeking treatment
- stating, “The basic underlying concept in these cases is that a physician-patient relationship, and thus a duty of care, may arise from whatever circumstances evince the physician’s consent to act for the patient’s medical benefit.”
- finding that a physician may consent to a physician-patient relationship by taking certain actions, “such as examining, diagnosing, treating, or prescribing treatment for the patient”
- collecting examples of “courts [that] recognize ... physicians who practice in the institutional environment may be found to have voluntarily assumed a duty of supervisory care pursuant to their contractual and employment arrangements with the hospital”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Moyer, C.J.,
concurring in syllabus and judgment. I concur only in the syllabus and judgment.