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

defendantappealtrialverdictduty of care
plaintiffdefendantappealtrialverdictduty of care

Related Cases

Travers v. District of Columbia, 672 A.2d 566
View Case »
Johnson v. University of Chicago Hospitals, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1994 WL 118192
View Case »
Priest v. Lindig, 583 P.2d 173
View Case »
Marabello v. State, 126 A.D.3d 767, 2 N.Y.S.3d 812 (Mem), 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01928
View Case »
Weaver by Weaver v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 201 Mich.App. 239, 506 N.W.2d 264, 86 Ed. Law Rep. 405
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ricks v. Budge, 91 Utah 307, 64 P.2d 208

Facts

Silas Ricks suffered an injury to his right hand on March 8, 1935, and sought treatment at the Budge Memorial Hospital on March 11, where he was treated by Dr. S. M. Budge. Ricks was discharged on March 15 against the doctor's advice. On March 17, Ricks returned to the clinic, where he was advised to go back to the hospital for further treatment. However, upon arrival, Dr. Budge refused to treat him until an outstanding account was settled, leading Ricks to seek treatment at another hospital.

The evidence shows that on or about March 8, 1935, plaintiff caught the middle finger of his right hand on a barbed wire. Soon thereafter the finger and hand began to swell and became reddened. In the early morning of March 11th, plaintiff went to the Budge Memorial Hospital to seek treatment from the defendants.

Issue

Did the defendants, Dr. S. M. Budge and Dr. D. C. Budge, breach their duty of care to Silas Ricks by refusing to treat him after he returned to the hospital, thereby causing him harm?

Did the defendants, Dr. S. M. Budge and Dr. D. C. Budge, breach their duty of care to Silas Ricks by refusing to treat him after he returned to the hospital, thereby causing him harm?

Rule

A physician has a duty to continue treatment as long as the patient requires it, unless the relationship is terminated by the patient or the physician provides reasonable notice of withdrawal.

A physician has a duty to continue treatment as long as the patient requires it, unless the relationship is terminated by the patient or the physician provides reasonable notice of withdrawal.

Analysis

The court found that a physician-patient relationship existed when Ricks returned to the clinic on March 17, as he was directed to come in by Dr. Budge and was examined by both doctors. The refusal to treat Ricks, who was in a critical condition, without proper notice or opportunity to seek alternative care, constituted a potential breach of duty. The evidence suggested that Ricks's condition worsened due to the lack of treatment, which warranted a jury's consideration.

The court found that a physician-patient relationship existed when Ricks returned to the clinic on March 17, as he was directed to come in by Dr. Budge and was examined by both doctors.

Conclusion

The court reversed the directed verdict in favor of the defendants and remanded the case for a new trial, indicating that there were sufficient grounds for a jury to determine whether the defendants were negligent.

The court reversed the directed verdict in favor of the defendants and remanded the case for a new trial, indicating that there were sufficient grounds for a jury to determine whether the defendants were negligent.

Who won?

Silas Ricks prevailed in the appeal as the court found that the directed verdict in favor of the defendants was improper, allowing for a new trial to assess the merits of his claims.

Silas Ricks prevailed in the appeal as the court found that the directed verdict in favor of the defendants was improper, allowing for a new trial to assess the merits of his claims.

You must be