Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

plaintiffliabilitytrialmalpracticecase lawseizure
plaintiffnegligencetrialmalpracticeobjectionappellantappellee

Related Cases

Tozier v. Tozier, 437 A.2d 645
View Case »
Hartford Elevator, Inc. v. Lauer, 94 Wis.2d 571, 289 N.W.2d 280
View Case »
Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219, 685 P.2d 1081, 116 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3142, 105 Lab.Cas. P 55,616, 1 IER Cases 392
View Case »
Mandel v. Liebman, 303 N.Y. 88, 100 N.E.2d 149
View Case »
De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 269 Conn. 424, 849 A.2d 382
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hospodar v. Schick, 885 A.2d 986, 2005 PA Super 319

Facts

This case arises from medical malpractice actions filed on behalf of the estates of Patricia A. Schick and Sherry A. Zeis after a fatal automobile accident on October 18, 2000. The driver of the other vehicle, Jack Smith, had a history of seizures and had previously blacked out while driving. Despite being aware of Smith's medical history and the risks associated with his condition, the physician, Dr. Hospodar, failed to diagnose Smith with a seizure disorder or report his condition to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, which ultimately led to the fatal accident.

This case arises from separate medical malpractice actions filed on behalf of the estates of Patricia A. Schick and Sherry A. Zeis in connection with a fatal automobile accident that occurred on October 18, 2000. Appellees alleged appellants were negligent in the treatment and care of Jack Smith, the driver of the automobile that collided with appellees' decedents' vehicle, and that appellants' negligence was the legal and factual cause of decedents' deaths.

Issue

Did the physician owe a duty to the estates of the deceased motorists to report the driver's medical condition to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, thereby creating a private cause of action for the estates?

Appellants now argue 'the trial court erred in overruling the appellants' preliminary objections to the plaintiff's complaints when the Supreme Court has ruled that the Motor Vehicle Act does not allow for a physician to be held liable to a third party who has been injured by one of the physician's patients.'

Rule

The Motor Vehicle Code does not create, explicitly or implicitly, a private cause of action against a physician for an accident caused by a patient due to the physician's failure to comply with notification requirements.

The Supreme Court rejected the estate's position, holding that the Motor Vehicle Code does not create, explicitly or implicitly, a private cause of action against a physician for an accident caused by a patient because the physician failed to comply with the notification requirements of the code.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts in light of the Motor Vehicle Code and previous case law, particularly the Supreme Court's decision in Witthoeft, which established that a physician's duty to report a patient's medical condition does not extend to creating liability for third parties. The court concluded that since the driver was aware of his condition and had a history of accidents, the physician's failure to report did not establish a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiffs.

The court further found 'Dr. Hospodar had a duty to take steps to minimize this risk' and properly and accurately report Smith's condition to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT).

Conclusion

The Superior Court reversed the trial court's order, concluding that the physician did not have a duty to the estates of the deceased motorists, and thus, no private cause of action existed.

Order reversed.

Who won?

The physician, Dr. Hospodar, prevailed in the case because the court found that he did not owe a duty to the estates of the deceased motorists under the Motor Vehicle Code.

The majority, upon reviewing the record in this case and considering certain cases promulgated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, finds the facts in the case under review to be analogous to the Supreme Court's earlier determinations and thereby reverses the Order of the trial judge.

You must be