Millard v. Corrado case brief summary
14 S.W.3d 42 (1999)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff was an emergency room patient that suffered aggravation of injuries resulting from delay in treatment because defendant doctor, the on call surgeon, was absent from the hospital. Plaintiff brought an action against defendant alleging negligence. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion arguing plaintiff failed to establish a physician-patient relationship, a necessary component of a medical negligence claim. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of defendant.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case. The trial court erred in concluding plaintiff failed to state a general negligence claim against defendant doctor. Further, because there were material questions of fact as to the existence of a physician-patient relationship, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
14 S.W.3d 42 (1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff appealed the
judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (Missouri)
which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant doctor in
plaintiff's negligence action.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff was an emergency room patient that suffered aggravation of injuries resulting from delay in treatment because defendant doctor, the on call surgeon, was absent from the hospital. Plaintiff brought an action against defendant alleging negligence. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion arguing plaintiff failed to establish a physician-patient relationship, a necessary component of a medical negligence claim. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of defendant.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court reversed the judgment.
- The court held that on call physicians owed a duty to reasonably foreseeable emergency patients to provide reasonable notice to appropriate hospital personnel when they will be unavailable to respond to calls.
- Further, since plaintiff adequately pleaded both a general negligence claim and a medical negligence claim, and because there were material questions of fact as to the existence of a physician-patient relationship, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case. The trial court erred in concluding plaintiff failed to state a general negligence claim against defendant doctor. Further, because there were material questions of fact as to the existence of a physician-patient relationship, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment