# Wilson v. Teng

> Supreme Court of Alabama · December 8, 2000 · 786 So. 2d 485

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9936523

## Case

- **Full name:** Stacia Lynn P. Wilson v. Bibi L. Teng, M.D.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** December 8, 2000
- **Citations:** 786 So. 2d 485; 2000 WL 1801547
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hooper
- **Judges:** Cook, From, Hooper, III, Johnstone, Parts, See
- **Cited by:** 27 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/9936523

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that expert testimony supplied evidence that there was an ongoing physician-patient relationship

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9936523. Public record. Not legal advice.