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

plaintiffdefendantmalpractice

plaintiffmotionmalpractice

Related Cases

Weaver by Weaver v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 201 Mich.App. 239, 506 N.W.2d 264, 86 Ed. Law Rep. 405

Facts

The plaintiff was diagnosed with hydrocephalus as a child and had a shunt implanted by Dr. Dauser at the University of Michigan Medical Center. After transferring her care to another neurosurgeon, the plaintiff's father called the medical center to schedule an appointment for a second opinion regarding the shunt's disconnection. The call was made without seeking medical advice, and the appointment was set for a later date. Following the appointment, the plaintiff suffered a permanent loss of vision, leading to the malpractice suit.

Plaintiff was diagnosed as hydrocephalic when she was six months old. Plaintiff's condition was treated by the insertion of a shunt that drained the excess fluid from the area around the brain. Following the surgery, plaintiff was periodically examined as an outpatient at the pediatric neurosurgery clinic until October 1982. Sometime after October 1982, but no later than 1985, plaintiff's mother transferred her neurological supervision and all medical records from the medical center to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Jakubiak.

Issue

Does a telephone call to schedule an appointment with a medical provider establish a physician-patient relationship sufficient to support a medical malpractice claim?

The question is one of first impression in Michigan. We hold that a telephone call merely to schedule an appointment with a provider of medical services does not by itself establish a physician-patient relationship where the caller has no ongoing physician-patient relationship with the provider and does not seek or obtain medical advice during the conversation.

Rule

A professional physician-patient relationship is a legal prerequisite for a cause of action for medical malpractice, and merely scheduling an appointment does not create such a relationship if no medical advice is sought or given.

A professional physician-patient relationship is a legal prerequisite of a cause of action for medical malpractice.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts and determined that the plaintiff's father did not seek or receive medical advice during the call to schedule the appointment. The prior physician-patient relationship had ended when the plaintiff transferred her care to another doctor. Therefore, the court concluded that the telephone call did not establish a new physician-patient relationship necessary for a malpractice claim.

The plaintiff's father admitted that he did not seek or expect medical advice when he called the medical center on March 9. He simply asked Ms. O'Neill for an appointment for a second opinion.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that no physician-patient relationship existed at the time of the call, and thus the medical center could not be held liable for malpractice.

We decline to recognize a physician-patient relationship from the single telephone call from the plaintiff's father to Dr. Dauser's office.

Who won?

The defendant, the operator of the university medical center, prevailed because the court found that no physician-patient relationship existed at the time of the relevant events.

The court granted the medical center's motion for summary disposition on the grounds that no physician-patient relationship existed between it and plaintiff on March 9, 1987.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Higdon v. Carlebach, 348 Mich. 363, 83 N.W.2d 296

Oja v. Kin, 229 Mich.App. 184, 581 N.W.2d 739

Toppino v. Herhahn, 100 N.M. 564, 673 P.2d 1297, 1983 -NMSC- 079

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

Lince v. Monson, 363 Mich. 135, 108 N.W.2d 845