13 N.E.3d 504
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Ruth Giles underwent outpatient nasal surgery on August 11, 2010; she died August 14, 2010 from cardiopulmonary arrest due to respiratory failure and pneumonia.
- Hospitalist, employed by Medical Corporation, was on-call but did not have authorization to treat Ruth because her Family Doctor had not deferred care to the hospitalist program.
- Hospitalist refused to treat Ruth after learning she was not a hospitalist patient, and did not examine or bill for Ruth.
- ENT Surgeon and PACU staff sought care for Ruth; Family Doctor was contacted and ultimately admitted Ruth later that day; Ruth deteriorated and died.
- Giles filed complaints alleging care rendered by hospital/physicians, including Hospitalist, breached the standard of care; the Hospitalist moved for summary judgment arguing no duty due to absence of physician-patient relationship.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding no duty due to lack of a physician-patient relationship; Giles appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Hospitalist owe a duty to Ruth absent a physician-patient relationship? | Giles argues hospitalist on-call status creates duty via practice rules/consultation. | Hospitalist contends no duty because Ruth was not his patient and no affirmative act occurred. | No duty; no physician-patient relationship existed. |
| Whether Miller v. Martig distinguishes Duty without treatment and supports imposing a duty here? | Giles asserts exception to Miller applies due to on-call status and hospital rules. | Hospitalist relies on Miller to show no relationship without treatment. | Miller controls; no duty without treatment or affirmative act. |
| Whether Webb v. Jarvis factors or public policy support creating a duty without a traditional relationship? | Giles urges public policy and Webb factors to impose duty despite no doctor-patient relationship. | Hospitalist argues Webb/public policy do not override absence of established duty; case law requires a relationship. | No duty under Webb/public policy analysis; not applicable. |
| Whether on-call hospitalist status can establish a physician-patient relationship absent contractual assignment? | Giles relies on Family Doctor authorization and ER backup letters to show relationship. | Hospitalist notes no contract and no affirmative act with Ruth; relationship not established. | Not established; no physician-patient relationship. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Martig, 754 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (no physician-patient relationship without treatment or affirmative act)
- Dixon v. Siwy, 661 N.E.2d 600 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (no relationship without physician's affirmative act; duty requires action)
- Walker v. Rinck, 604 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 1992) (duty arises from contractual relationship between doctor and patient)
- Harper v. Hippensteel, 994 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (no nurse-practitioner consultation creates physician-patient relationship absent affirmative act)
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (triad factors for duty; public policy considerations)
- Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (duty analysis in negligence standards; summary judgment context)
- Bader v. Johnson, 732 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. 2000) (negligence elements; duty essential for liability)
- Mahan v. Am. Standard Ins. Co., 862 N.E.2d 669 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (summary judgment standard in medical malpractice context)