Doheny v. Medical Faculty Associates, Inc.

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Medical Faculty Associates in a medical-malpractice action arising from complications following a cardiac ablation procedure. The court held that the evidence created a genuine issue of fact concerning whether an ongoing physician-patient relationship existed and whether the physician owed a duty to share information about a possible atrio-esophageal fistula. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The existence of a physician-patient relationship is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury and may be resolved as a matter of law only when the relationship is clear as a matter of law.
2. A physician-patient relationship does not require a face-to-face meeting and may arise in appropriate circumstances through consultation with another physician.
3. If the jury finds an ongoing physician-patient relationship, a physician who recently treated the patient may owe a limited duty to share information that could assist in diagnosing the patient's condition when asked for that information and when the physician weighs in on treatment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on the ground that Dr. Shapiro did not have a physician-patient relationship with Ms. Doheny during the telephone consultation.
2. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding an ongoing physician-patient relationship and the resulting duty to share information relevant to diagnosing a complication of the physician's recent treatment.
3. Whether the physician-patient relationship and duty issues could properly be resolved as a matter of law rather than by a jury.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded