# CROSBY BY CROSBY v. Sultz

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 19, 1991 · 405 Pa. Super. 527

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749383

## Case

- **Full name:** Ryan CROSBY, Shane Crosby, and Celina Crosby, Minors by Their Parents and Natural Guardians Barbara and Ronald CROSBY, Jr., H/W and Barbara and Ronald Crosby, Jr., H/W in Their Own Right, Appellants, v. Marvin SULTZ, D.O., Appellee
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 19, 1991
- **Citations:** 405 Pa. Super. 527; 592 A.2d 1337; 1991 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1715
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brosky
- **Judges:** Sole, Popovich, Brosky
- **Cited by:** 36 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/9749383

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the doctor of a diabetic patient owed no duty to third parties injured by the patient in a car accident

## Opinion text

BROSKY, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the allegations set forth in appellants’ complaint fail to set forth a cause of action. I therefore concur in the result reached by the majority. However, I write separately to express my concerns regarding the implications of the majority’s holding.
*549 The report of a patient to the state is undoubtedly a serious matter because the ability to legally operate a motor vehicle is not a luxury in today’s society; rather, it is a matter of necessity for most individuals. Because of the importance of maintaining one’s driving privileges, physicians may not want to subject their patients to the loss of their driving licenses by reporting their patients to the state. My concern with the majority’s holding is that once the incentive of avoiding potential lawsuits from injured third-parties is removed, physicians may no longer feel compelled to comply with their statutory reporting requirements.
The legislature has attempted to promote highway safety and protect members of the public by requiring physicians to report their patients to the appropriate authorities where the patients have particular medical conditions that may affect their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Without question, a physician’s compliance with the reporting requisites cannot guarantee that the patient’s driving license will be revoked by the state or that the patient will not illegally operate his vehicle. However, the physician’s compliance will at least further the legislative scheme by putting the state on notice that certain individuals may be unqualified or incompetent to safely operate a motor vehicle. Where a physician fails to report a patient to the state, the legislative scheme is compromised in that it becomes virtually impossible for the state to identify individuals affected by medical conditions which impact on their ability to drive safely. Thus, a physician’s compliance with the statute is a necessary and essential component; without such compliance, the system will simply no longer work. The courts should therefore be reluctant to encourage physicians to breach their statutory duties; instead, physicians should be urged to continue to report their patients where the appropriate criteria have been met.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749383. Public record. Not legal advice.