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

settlementplaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialfiduciarytrustleasefiduciary dutygood faithbreach of fiduciary duty

settlementplaintiffdefendanttrialfiduciarytrustfiduciary dutygood faith

Related Cases

Lockett v. Goodill, 71 Wash.2d 654, 430 P.2d 589

Facts

The plaintiff underwent an appendectomy on April 19, 1961, performed by Dr. G. H. Lawrence, and was paralyzed in both lower extremities post-operation. He was hospitalized until June 13, 1961, during which he received various tests and treatments. After being discharged, he was able to use a walker and later crutches, but he could not return to his job as a truck driver. The defendants denied negligence and claimed a release signed by the plaintiff as an affirmative defense, which was executed after discussions with an insurance adjuster regarding a settlement based on the plaintiff's belief that he would recover within a year.

Although the appendectomy was apparently successful, plaintiff was paralyzed in both lower extremities after the operation. An epidural block had been administered.

Issue

Did the defendants breach their fiduciary duty to the plaintiff by failing to inform him that they could not predict his recovery within a year, thus rendering the settlement he agreed to false and uninformed?

Rule

The relationship between a patient and physician is a fiduciary one that requires trust, confidence, and good faith. Physicians have a duty to inform patients of material information that could affect their decisions.

The relationship of patient and physician is a fiduciary one of the highest degree. It involves every element of trust, confidence and good faith.

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence, if believed, indicated that the defendants did not adequately inform him about his medical condition and the uncertainty of his recovery. The plaintiff testified that he was not told about the nature of his nerve damage or the results of his tests, which could have influenced his decision regarding the settlement. The court emphasized that the defendants had a duty to disclose this critical information, which they failed to do.

Plaintiff's evidence, if believed, is sufficient to support the conclusion that defendants breached this trust when they did not inform him that they were unable to predict that he would recover within a year.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, stating that the evidence warranted a jury's consideration.

The judgment of dismissal is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the appeal because the Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants.

The Supreme Court held that evidence was for jury on issue as to whether or not defendant doctors breached trust when they did not inform plaintiff that they were unable to predict that he would recover within a year.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Wright v. Jeckle, 104 Wash.App. 478, 16 P.3d 1268

George Washington University v. Waas, 648 A.2d 178

Bernard v. Char, 79 Hawai’i 371, 903 P.2d 676

Roa v. Lodi Medical Group, Inc., 37 Cal.3d 920, 695 P.2d 164, 211 Cal.Rptr. 77, 53 USLW 2410

Jarmie v. Troncale, 306 Conn. 578, 50 A.3d 802