Medina v. Hochberg

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a physician who is not a mental health professional does not owe a third party a duty arising from a purported special relationship with the physician’s patient. The court also declined to extend the limited duty recognized in Coombes v. Florio to require a physician to warn a patient about the risks of driving resulting from an underlying medical condition, rather than prescribed medication. Because the plaintiff could not establish that the physician owed him a cognizable legal duty, summary judgment for the physician was affirmed.

Holdings

1. A medical professional, other than a mental health professional, does not owe a third person a duty to control a patient's conduct based on a claimed special relationship between the medical professional and the patient.
2. A physician does not owe a duty to nonpatients to warn a patient of the dangers of driving posed by the patient's underlying medical condition when the risk is not caused or increased by the physician's affirmative treatment.
3. Hochberg was entitled to summary judgment because he owed Medina no cognizable legal duty.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a physician owes a nonpatient a duty to control the physician's patient based on a special relationship between physician and patient.
2. Whether a physician owes a nonpatient a duty under ordinary negligence principles to warn the patient about the dangers of driving posed by the patient's underlying medical condition.
3. Whether summary judgment was properly entered for Hochberg because he owed Medina no cognizable legal duty.

Disposition

affirmed