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
Lundberg Stratton, J.,
concurring in syllabus and judgment only. I join Justice Cook’s concurrence but also write to state that once we determined that issues of fact existed, our duty ended. The majority, however, goes on to comment on and evaluate the disputed evidence. That is not our role in this case and is unnecessary to the disposition of this case. Having sent the matter back to the trier of fact, we should refrain from possible prejudicial comments regarding those facts. Therefore, I respectfully concur in the syllabus and judgment only.