 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hemmerlin-Stewart v. Allina Hospitals & Clinics9/6/2005
tatement: " n the presence of a fiduciary and confidential relation[ship] the fraud may more readily be perpetrated. The relation[ship] of physician and patient of itself begets confidence and reliance on the part of the patient." Id. But Schmucking does not hold that the relationship between a physician and a patient is fiduciary in nature; the statement in Schmucking that appellant relies on is only dictum. This court has declined to reframe medical-malpractice claims in terms of a breach of a fiduciary duty on the part of the physician. D.A.B. v. Brown, 570 N.W.2d 168, 171-72 (Minn. App. 1997). There is no Minnesota caselaw holding that physicians or hospital staff members have a fiduciary duty toward their patients.
Appellant further suggests that an Eighth Circuit case is instructive. In Roberts v. Francis, 128 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 1997), a patient underwent surgery to have her bladder removed, and the surgeon also removed her only remaining ovary. Approximately four years later, while being treated by a different physician, the patient first learned that her ovary had been removed. Id. at 649. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the surgeon, stating that: " nder Arkansas law, a party may have an obligation to speak rather than remain silent, when a failure to speak is the equivalent of fraudulent concealment." Id. Regarding when a duty to speak arises, the Eighth Circuit quoted the Arkansas Supreme Court, " he duty of disclosure . . . arises where one person is in position to have and to exercise influence over another who reposes confidence in him whether a fiduciary relationship in the strict sense of the term exists between them or not." Id. Appellant's reliance on Roberts is misplaced because the Eighth Circuit applied Arkansas law, which is not controlling in Minnesota.
In Haberle v. Buchwald, 480 N.W.2d 351 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Aug. 4, 1992), a patient brought a medical-malpractice action following postoperative complications. The patient contended that a genuine issue of fact existed because of the physician's "false denial of the cause of her complications and on the exclusion or misstatement of important information in her medical records." Id. at 357. This court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the physician and rejected the patient's claim of fraudulent concealment because the patient produced no facts suggesting that the physician intentionally concealed anything from her or intentionally omitted important information from her medical records. Id.
A similar situation exists here. Appellant has produced no facts that respondents intentionally concealed anything from her or intentionally omitted important information from her medical records. Indeed, the 1989 x-ray report stating the existence of the CVL in appellant's body was found in appellant's medical records rather than hidden or discarded to conceal a potential cause of action. Further, appellant failed to provide any evidence that respondents intentionally concealed any information from her.
" 'genuine issue' of material fact for trial 'must be established by substantial evidence.'" DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 70 (Minn. 1997). A party cannot rely on general statements of fact to oppose a motion for summary judgment; instead, the nonmoving party must demonstrate that at the time the motion is made, specific facts exist that create a genuine issue of material fact. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.05; Moundsview Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 621 v. Buetow & Assocs., Inc., 253 N.W.2d 836, 838 (Minn. 1977). "Mere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment[,]" and the evidence "must have some foundation oth
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|