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
I respectfully dissent. The main opinion recites sufficient facts to show that the trial court properly entered the summary judgment for Dr. Teng. The plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. There are procedures in an emergency room for determining who will be the doctor to treat a patient. Without the application of those procedures, the patient does not know who should be responsible for his or her treatment, nor does a doctor know that she is responsible for a particular patient. The jury should not be the final arbiter of that question, because having the jury decide it would result in having shifting standards all over the state in different hospital emergency rooms as to who should be held responsible for treatment. Dr. Teng made a showing that she was not the emergency-room treating physician. Subjecting Dr. Teng to a jury trial risks holding liable a person who lacked responsibility for treating the patient. Therefore, I dissent.