 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rustvold v. Taylor11/22/2000
urs. Rather, we are speaking of 'harm' in the legal sense, i.e., a collection of facts that the law is prepared to recognize as constituting the 'harm' element of a claim for professional negligence."
By framing the issue in this manner, the Curtis court set the stage for deciding as a matter of law whether the plaintiff's complaint states a valid claim despite its failure to allege any physical injury .
It analyzed the issue by holding:
"Plaintiff's claim invokes specific duties imposed on a group of medical professionals to guard against recognized medical risks that happen to be psychological in nature. It is, in that sense, like a patient's claim against a psychotherapist who violates the relevant standard of care by entering into a sexual relationship with a patient, thereby causing depression or anxiety, or against a physician who inappropriately prescribes a drug that causes or exacerbates a psychological condition." 327 Or at 15. (Footnote omitted; emphasis in original).
The court's statement is a judicial declaration of a legal standard of care imposed on the medical profession as a result of the facts alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. Again, it is not based on a standard of care allegation in the complaint.
The court explained the reasoning underlying its declaration in the next paragraph and the limitation on its holding:
"We are persuaded that, when the claim is that a medical practitioner breached a professional duty to guard against a specified medical harm, the fact that the harm is psychological rather than physical is not a bar to liability. Our holding should not be read to mean that medical professionals operate under a general duty to avoid any emotional harm that foreseeably might result from their conduct. In that regard, their duty is no greater than that of the population at large. But, where the standard of care in a particular medical profession recognizes the possibility of adverse psychological reactions or consequences as a medical concern and dictates that certain precautions be taken to avoid or minimize it, the law will not insulate persons in that profession from liability if they fail in those duties, thereby causing the contemplated harm." 327 Or at 15-16.
The court concluded,
"When read in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the complaint alleges that defendants were medical professionals who owed a duty to plaintiff to identify and guard against predictable psychological reactions or consequences--including claustrophobic reactions--to the MRI procedure * * *." 327 Or at 16.
Curtis establishes the rule that, under certain circumstances, recovery can be obtained for psychological harm resulting from negligence in the absence of physical injury. That rule defeats defendants' argument that there must been an actual exposure to HIV or Hepatitis B before plaintiff's claims are cognizable. In addition, a reading of Curtis in context demonstrates that Curtis does not require that plaintiffs expressly plead and prove a specific duty to be aware of and guard against particular adverse psychological reactions or consequences to medical procedures in order to state a claim. Such a reading would be contrary to existing case law. The court has previously held that a complaint for injuries resulting from negligence may allege either a specific duty to be imposed on the negligent party, or facts from which the law would infer a duty. See Hendricks v. Sanford, 216 Or 149, 158-59, 337 P2d 974 (1959) (holding that " complaint for injuries resulting from negligence should allege what duty was imposed or state facts from which the law would imply a duty and a breach thereo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|