holding physician had no duty to third party injured by patient after patient was prescribed anabolic steroids and developed a resulting psychosis, and that while “generally physicians do not owe a duty to unknown nonpatients who may be injured by the physician’s treatment of a patient,” the duty analysis is fact-sensitive
How later courts described this case
- holding physician had no duty to third party injured by patient after patient was prescribed anabolic steroids and developed a resulting psychosis, and that while “generally physicians do not owe a duty to unknown nonpatients who may be injured by the physician’s treatment of a patient,” the duty analysis is fact-sensitive
- recognizing Walker and other cases as holding that “a professional is not liable to third persons who rely on his conclusions or opinions unless the professional had actual knowledge that those third persons would have such reliance”
- holding that in determining whether to impose a duty, the following factors must be balanced: (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) public policy concerns
- stating that three factors must be balanced in determining existence of common-law duty: "(1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) public policy concerns."
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by April Goodwin, Tiffany Randolph and Javon Washington v. Yeakle's Sports Bar and Grill, Inc., 2016 Ind. LEXIS 756 (2016)
575 N.E.2d 992, 995 (Ind. 1991), disapproved of by Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384
The opinion
DICKSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur separately to reflect my understanding that by our opinion today this Court does not intend to unequivocally declare that physicians generally have no duty toward unknown third persons fore-seeably at risk of injury resulting from the negligent administration or prescription of medication.
In treating patients, the Indiana Medical Licensing Board requires that physicians provide treatment "based upon generally accepted scientific principles, methods, treatments, and current professional theory and practice." 844 Ind.Administrative Code § 5-1-2(d) (1991). Among such generally accepted practice, the Preamble to the American Medical Association Principles of Medical Ethics 1 includes the following declaration:
As a member of this profession, a physician must recognize responsibility not only to patients, but also to society, to other health professionals, and to self. (Emphasis added.)
Whether in determining a course of drug therapy for a patient, in implementing such medication program, or in providing adequate warnings to a patient or others, a physician's duty to third persons should be evaluated in the same manner as it is generally. There exists no absolute immunity for that aspect of medical care which relates to prescription drugs. Assuming our opinion is not inconsistent with this view, I concur.
. These Principles of Medical Ethics have also been expressly incorporated in the bylaws of the Indiana State Medical Association. 76 J.Ind.St. Med.A. 93 (1983).