 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martinez v. Lewis11/29/1996
nge of motion. Both the doctor and the therapist were made aware of plaintiff's previous back surgeries and injuries. Following the evaluation, the plaintiff began to experience pain in her lower back and eventually was forced into surgery to relieve the discomfort. The supreme court held that a physician who conducts an independent medical examination owes a duty of care to an examinee not to refer her for testing of a type that foreseeably will result in injury based on information known to the physician.
It is undisputed that plaintiff and Lewis neither had a physician-patient relationship nor an express contract. Alternatively, no facts in this case indicate that a contract for medical services arose by implication. Plaintiff does not contend that she sought medical advice or treatment from Lewis, that he advised her in any way, or that he failed to inform her of some unknown condition.
There is also no dispute that Lewis was retained solely by State Farm in order to review plaintiff's past medical records, perform his own examination, and report to State Farm what he believed to be the diagnosis, the prognosis, and other information about what treatment, if any, was necessary. The agreement between State Farm and Lewis was solely for the benefit of State Farm; at no time was Lewis to advise the patient on a recommended course of treatment.
In her deposition, which was attached to defendant's reply in support of his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff states that she knew nothing of Lewis' qualifications, background, or about the nature of the services he was going to be rendering. She simply agreed to meet with Lewis pursuant to the obligation in her insurance contract to attend medical examinations by physicians selected by State Farm.
Further, Lewis' report to State Farm mentions that before his interview with plaintiff, he informed her that the information obtained during the exam was not confidential and that a report would be given to the referring party.
Thus, the trial court properly concluded there was no physician-patient relationship.
In other jurisdictions, the absence of a physician-patient relationship has resulted in a determination that there is no duty of due care owed by the doctor to the examinee. See Hafner v. Beck, 185 Ariz. 389, 203 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 16, 916 P.2d 1105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995)(since no physician-patient relationship existed, duty ran not from the independent medical examiner to the examinee, but from the independent medical examiner to the insurance carrier); Keene v. Wiggins, 69 Cal. App. 3d 308, 138 Cal. Rptr. 3 (1977)(where a doctor conducts an examination of an injured employee solely for the purpose of rating the injury for the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier, the doctor is not liable to the person being examined for negligence in making that report - doctor's duty of due care in preparation of report runs only to the employer and insurance carrier); Rogers v. Horvath, 65 Mich. App. 644, 237 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. App. 1975)(a doctor who neither advised nor treated plaintiff did not owe plaintiff a duty arising from a doctor patient relationship when the plaintiff lost benefits from an insurance company based on the doctor's examination); Violandi v. City of New York, 184 A.D.2d 364, 584 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)(a physician-patient relationship does not exist when the examination is conducted solely for the purpose or convenience or on behalf of an employer); Tomko v. Marks, 412 Pa. Super. 54, 602 A.2d 890 (1992)(plaintiff did not have a medical malpractice claim when the examination was conducted solely at the request of plaintiff's employer); Wilson v. Winsett, 828 S.W.2d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|