# Lownsbury v. VanBuren

> Ohio Supreme Court · February 20, 2002 · 94 Ohio St. 3d 231

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783707

## Case

- **Full name:** Lownsbury v. VanBuren Stover
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 20, 2002
- **Citations:** 94 Ohio St. 3d 231; 762 N.E.2d 354
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Moyer
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney, Syllabus
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783707

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- noting that a physician may consent to a physician-patient relationship and thereby assume a duty by taking “certain actions that indicate knowing consent, such as examining, diagnosing, treating, or prescribing treatment for the patient.”

## Opinion text

Moyer, C.J.,
concurring in syllabus and judgment. I concur only in the syllabus and judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783707. Public record. Not legal advice.