 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
ELLIS v. NILES10/31/1994
e not directly involved in the alleged negligent treatment, Ellis maintains they are nonetheless liable. Ellis contends that the doctors' status as A.T.L.S. specialists on the trauma team coupled with their participation (albeit limited) in Ellis's treatment is sufficient to establish a physician-patient relationship with Ellis.
In granting a directed verdict, the trial court determined there was no physician-patient relationship between Ellis and Dr. Bynoe or Dr. Niles, and therefore no duty to Ellis. On appeal, Ellis argues that the directed verdict Ellis also challenges the exclusion of the trauma team protocol prepared by the hospital.
II.
There are two issues of novel impression in this state that could arise from the circumstances of this case. Both of them depend for their validity on the unique situation presented by the specialized services sought to be provided by the Richland Memorial Hospital as a Level 1 Trauma Center.
The first issue is whether the relationship of physician and patient existed between Niles and Bynoe and the patient Ellis, thereby imposing a duty on them to act with reasonable care in his treatment. The trial judge correctly concluded that a duty imposed by law is a question solely for the court. See, e.g., Rogers v. South Carolina Dept. of Mental Health, 297 S.C. 363, 377 S.E.2d 125 (Ct.App. 1989). It is well-settled law that when a physician-patient relationship exists, the physician owes the patient a duty to exercise reasonable care. Roberts v. Hunter, ___ S.C. ___, 426 S.E.2d 797 (1993). A physician-patient relationship is generally described as " consensual one wherein the patient knowingly seeks the assistance of a physician and the physician knowingly accepts him as a patient." Id. at ___, 426 S.E.2d at 799. The question here, however, is whether a physician-patient relationship can exist in the context of the unusual facts presented by this case. While no South Carolina case has specifically addressed the issue, a review of case law from other jurisdictions makes clear that the existence of a physician-patient relationship is a question of fact for the jury. See, e.g., Walker v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 209 Ga. App. 517, 434 S.E.2d 63 (Ct.App. 1993), cert. Denied (1993); Mozingo v. Pitt County Mem. Hosp., Inc., 101 N.C. App. 578, 400 S.E.2d 747 (Ct.App. 1991), aff'd 331 N.C. 182, 415 S.E.2d 341 (1992); Gallion v. Woytassek, 244 Neb. 15, 504 N.W.2d 76 (1993); Bienz v. Central Suffolk Hosp., 163 A.D.2d 269,
The second issue, which arises whether or not a physician-patient relationship is found to exist, requires a determination of the duty of care owed by a supervising physician. Other jurisdictions have held supervising physicians liable for negligent supervision, even if the physician did not actually treat the patient. See, e.g., Mozingo v. Pitt County Mem. Hosp., Inc., 331 N.C. 182, 415 S.E.2d (1992). In Mozingo, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial court's order of summary judgment in favor of a supervising physician. The infant plaintiff in Mozingo was injured during birth, allegedly the result of negligence on the part of the residents performing the delivery. The defendant doctor responsible for supervision of the residents the day in question was on call, and did not arrive at the hospital until after the child was born. The North Carolina Supreme Court recognized that health care is becoming more specialized and complex, and that patients are often treated with "teams of professionals, some of whom never actually come in contact with the treated patient but whose expertise is nevertheless vital to the treatment and recovery of patients." Id. at 189, 415 S.E.2d at 345. The cou
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|