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

plaintiffworkers' compensationduty of care
plaintiffappealworkers' compensationrespondent

Related Cases

Burton v. Brooklyn Doctors Hosp., nan
View Case »
Reed v. Bojarski, 166 N.J. 89, 764 A.2d 433
View Case »
Hunner v. Stevenson, 122 Md. 40, 89 A. 418
View Case »
Estates of Milliron v. Francke, 243 Mont. 200, 793 P.2d 824
View Case »
Jeanes v. Milner, 428 F.2d 598
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Murphy v. Blum, 160 A.D.2d 914, 554 N.Y.S.2d 640

Facts

Donald Murphy, while employed as a referee for the NBA, was required to undergo a yearly physical examination, which was performed by Dr. Richard Blum. During the examination, Dr. Blum received abnormal results from an exercise stress test conducted by Dr. Kenneth Rubin. Dr. Blum communicated these findings to the NBA officials, but he was not engaged to treat or advise Murphy directly. Subsequently, Murphy suffered a cardiac arrest during the season and could no longer serve as a referee.

Dr. Blum also analyzed the results of an exercise stress test performed upon the plaintiff by Dr. Kenneth Rubin. Dr. Rubin advised Dr. Blum that Murphy's test was 'abnormal with respect to ST segment changes'.

Issue

Did a physician-patient relationship exist between Donald Murphy and Dr. Richard Blum, and did Dr. Blum have a duty to treat or advise Murphy?

Since Dr. Blum was retained by the NBA solely for the purpose of advising it whether Murphy would be physically capable of performing his duties as a referee and not to treat or advise the plaintiff, no physician-patient relationship existed in this case.

Rule

A doctor engaged solely for the purpose of examining a person for workers' compensation or similar purposes has a common-law duty to use reasonable care during the examination, but no duty exists concerning treatment or expert opinions if the doctor was retained solely to examine the plaintiff.

A doctor engaged only for the purpose of examining a person for workers' compensation or similar purposes is under a common-law duty to use reasonable care and his best judgment when conducting the examination (see, Twitchell v. MacKay, 78 A.D.2d 125, 434 N.Y.S.2d 516).

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that Dr. Blum was retained only to assess Murphy's physical capability to perform as a referee and not to provide treatment or advice. Since there was no engagement for treatment, the court concluded that no physician-patient relationship existed, which was essential for establishing a duty of care.

Therefore, the court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs' action for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211[a][7]).

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action against Dr. Blum.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Who won?

Dr. Richard Blum prevailed in the case because the court found that he had no duty to treat or advise Murphy, as there was no physician-patient relationship established.

You must be