finding that expert testimony supplied evidence that there was an ongoing physician-patient relationship
How later courts described this case
- finding that expert testimony supplied evidence that there was an ongoing physician-patient relationship
- “ ‘ “When a party has given clear answers to unambiguous questions which negate the existence of any genuine issue of material fact, that party cannot thereafter create such an issue with an affidavit that merely contradicts, without explanation, previously given clear testimony.” ’ [Doe v. Swift, 570 So.2d 1209, 1214 (Ala.1990)], quoting Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d. 958, 961 *872 (Ala.1987).”
- “[Our supreme court] has held that ‘a party is not allowed to directly contradict prior sworn testimony to avoid the entry of a summary judgment.’ ” (quoting Continental Eagle Corp. v. Mokrzycki, 611 So.2d 313, 317 (Ala.1992))
- "This Court has held that `a party is not allowed to directly contradict prior sworn testimony to avoid the entry of a summary judgment.'" (quoting Continental Eagle Corp. v.Mokrzycki 611 So.2d 313, 317 (Ala. 1992))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dr. Bibi Teng moved for a summary judgment, arguing that, as a matter of law, no physician-patient relationship arose out of her visit with Stacia Wilson and her daughter, Starsha Wilson, on the morning of May 19, 1994, in the emergency room of Athens-Limestone Hospital. The trial court agreed with Dr. Teng and entered a summary judgment on that ground. *Page 500
In so doing, the trial court erred. The affidavits and depositions create a question of fact on the specific issue whether Dr. Teng's emergency-room visit with Ms. Wilson and the emergency-room physician, along with her concomitant examination of Starsha's medical charts, created an implied contract to provide professional services to Starsha Wilson.