Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractnegligencetrialimplied contract

contractappellant

Related Cases

Childs v. Weis, 440 S.W.2d 104

Facts

On November 27, 1966, Daisy Childs, who was seven months pregnant, went to the Greenville Hospital emergency room due to bleeding and labor pains. Nurse H. Beckham examined her and informed her that she needed to go to her doctor in Dallas. Daisy Childs gave birth in a car on the way to another medical facility, and the baby died shortly after birth. Dr. Weis, who had never seen or treated Daisy, stated that he advised the nurse to have her call her own doctor for further instructions.

On or about November 27, 1966 Daisy Childs, wife of J. C. Childs, a resident of Dallas County, was approximately seven months pregnant. On that date she was visiting in Lone Oak, Texas, and about two o'clock A.M. she presented herself to the Greenville Hospital emergency room.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether a patient-physician relationship existed between Dr. Weis and Daisy Childs, which would impose a duty on Dr. Weis to provide medical care.

The cardinal question presented by appellant's two main points is the existence Vel non of a patient-physician relationship between Dr. Weis and appellant's wife.

Rule

The court ruled that the relationship of physician and patient is contractual and wholly voluntary, created by agreement, express or implied. A physician is not legally obligated to provide services unless such a relationship exists.

The relation of physician and patient is contractual and wholly voluntary, created by agreement, express or implied.

Analysis

The court found that there was no evidence of an express or implied contract between Dr. Weis and Daisy Childs that would establish a patient-physician relationship. Dr. Weis had not examined or treated Daisy and had only advised the nurse to have her contact her own physician. Therefore, he had no legal duty to provide care, and the actions of Nurse Beckham could not be imputed to him due to the lack of a principal-agent relationship.

Applying these principles of law to the factual situation here presented we find an entire absence of evidence of a contract, either express or implied, which would create the relationship of patient and physician as between Dr. Weis and Mrs. Childs.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Dr. Weis was not liable for the alleged negligence because no patient-physician relationship existed.

We cannot agree with appellant that Dr. Weis' statement to the nurse over the telephone amounted to an acceptance of the case and affirmative instructions which she was bound to follow.

Who won?

Dr. C. B. Weis prevailed in the case because the court found that he had no duty to treat Daisy Childs due to the absence of a patient-physician relationship.

Dr. Weis, under these circumstances, was under no duty whatsoever to examine or treat Mrs. Childs.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

McDonald v. Hampton Training School for Nurses, 254 Va. 79, 486 S.E.2d 299

Wilson v. El-Daief, 600 Pa. 161, 964 A.2d 354

Stogsdill v. Healthmark Partners, L.L.C., 377 F.3d 827

Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hosp., Inc., 176 W.Va. 492, 345 S.E.2d 791

Duffy v. Flagg, 279 Conn. 682, 905 A.2d 15