# Lownsbury v. VanBuren

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783709

## 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 Stratton
- **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/6783709

## 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

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783709. Public record. Not legal advice.