 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
ELLIS v. NILES10/31/1994
rt therefore held that a physician "who undertakes to provide on-call supervision of residents actually treating a patient may be held accountable to that patient, if the physician negligently supervises those residents and such negligent supervision proximately causes the patient's injuries." Id. The fact that the defendant and patient "did not fit traditional notions of the doctor-patient relationship" did not change the defendant's duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising the residents. Id. at 188, 415 S.E.2d at 345. Here, as the highest-ranking members of the trauma team, Bynoe and Niles apparently had supervisory responsibilities over the other members of the team. Therefore, Bynoe and Niles arguably had a duty to supervise the team's treatment of Ellis.
Unfortunately, however, neither issue is presented to this Court with sufficient factual development for us to make a determination, because the trial court, on its own motion, directed Given the novel issues presented by this case, Ellis was at least entitled to present his entire case. Instead, just before Ellis called his expert, the trial court sua sponte dispensed with further testimony and began a colloquy with the attorneys that resulted in proposed stipulations and disclaimers of stipulations regarding what the testimony of the expert would reflect. We are left uncomfortably uncertain as to what his testimony would have been. The only thing we are certain of is that his testimony would have been directed toward the standard of care to be reasonably expected of physicians occupying the same position as Bynoe and Ellis on the trauma team. It is apparent that the testimony would not only have addressed any deviation from the expected standard of care in the actual procedure of establishing an airway for Ellis, but also the standard of care for physicians who have contracted to be a member of the trauma team. While it does not appear that negligent supervision was raised in the pleadings, it was argued at trial. The pleadings, however, were never formally amended, because the testimony was not allowed to reach a stage at which a motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof would have been proper. Obviously, the expert's testimony was crucial in this regard.
As discussed above, the existence of a physician-patient relationship is a question of fact. The trial court, however, believed that the existence of the relationship was a question of law. Because the trial court improperly directed the verdict against Ellis, we must reverse and remand for a new trial. Unfortunately, the trial judge did not have an adequate record upon which to make a determination of the merits of Ellis' claims, nor do we. Consequently, we cannot determine whether or not a physician-patient relationship existed, nor We express no opinion as to whether a physician-patient relationship can be established under the facts of this case, nor do we decide whether a negligent supervision claim is proper in this particular case or in malpractice cases generally. In addition, because we are remanding for a new trial, we do not reach Ellis' challenge to the exclusion of the trauma team protocol. The resolution of these issues must be made by the trial court on remand, after the facts are fully developed.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the order of the trial court is hereby reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
SHAW and CURETON, J.J., concur.
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.
|
|