Michael L. Woodruff v. Stuart Gitlow, M.D.
2014 R.I. LEXIS 77
| R.I. | 2014Background
- Woodruff, a commercial pilot, surrendered his FAA medical certificate after a 2008 accident and sought reinstatement in 2009.
- The FAA retained Dr. Stuart Gitlow to review Woodruff’s medical records and opine on alcohol dependence under FAA criteria.
- Gitlow did not personally examine Woodruff and based his conclusions solely on records provided by the FAA, describing the file as a fraction of Woodruff’s total records.
- After Gitlow’s report concurred with an alcohol-dependence finding, the FAA denied Woodruff’s certificate renewal, prompting a negligence suit against Gitlow.
- Superior Court denied summary judgment; Gitlow petitioned for certiorari, which this Court granted to decide duty of care in a physician hired by a third party for record review.
- Rhode Island Supreme Court held that Gitlow owed no duty of care to Woodruff under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a physician hired to review records owes a duty of care to the patient. | Woodruff argues a duty arises from third-party medical reviews. | Gitlow contends no duty exists without a physician-patient relationship. | No duty found as a matter of law. |
| Whether Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 supports a duty here. | Woodruff relies on § 552 to impose liability for negligent information. | Court should not apply § 552 as there is no intended recipient loss shown. | § 552 does not create the duty; ad hoc approach applied instead. |
| Should the court apply an ad hoc Banks factors approach to determine duty? | Factors support duty due to foreseeability and harm. | Public policy and burden weigh against imposing a duty. | Banks factors do not support a duty in this case. |
| Is the Anti-SLAPP statute applicable to shield Gitlow? | Woodruff may sustain liability regardless of SLAPP protections. | Anti-SLAPP would shield speech acts unrelated to duty. | Not reached; duty found absent anyway. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daly v. United States, 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1991) (duty to disclose discovered conditions in certain IMEs)
- Reed v. Bojarski, 764 A.2d 433 (N.J. 2001) (life-threatening findings and disclosure duty narrow scope)
- Rand v. Miller, 408 S.E.2d 655 (W. Va. 1991) (physician hired to review records; tenuous physician-patient relationship)
- Banks v. Bowen’s Landing Corp., 522 A.2d 1222 (R.I. 1987) (five-factor duty test subsequent to Banks)
- Ouch v. Khea, 963 A.2d 630 (R.I. 2009) (ad hoc duty analysis framework)