By Damian D. Capozzola, Esq., and Jamie Terrence, RN
News
The Court of Appeal for California’s Third District recently upheld a summary judgment in favor of a cardiologist in a medical malpractice case. The lawsuit was brought by the adult children of a patient who died after experiencing a cardiac emergency at a Sacramento County hospital. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, the on-call interventional cardiologist, negligently refused to provide care, ultimately contributing to their father’s death.
An elderly man with a history of cardiovascular issues was admitted for symptoms of a potential heart condition. Hospital staff recommended a cardiology consultation and contacted the on-call cardiologist. According to the complaint, the defendant declined to see the patient in person and suggested conservative management. Hours later, the patient’s condition deteriorated, and he experienced a fatal heart attack.
The plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice lawsuit and argued that the defendant’s on-call status and phone consultation with the attending physician created a duty of care owed to the patient. The defendant argued that no physician-patient relationship existed between the on-call cardiologist and patient. Therefore, no duty of care existed. Both the trial court and appellate court agreed, clarifying that no duty of care arises under these circumstances for on-call physicians.
Background
This case arises from the death of a hospital patient and the subsequent lawsuit filed by his adult children, who alleged medical malpractice against the on-call interventional cardiologist. The events unfolded at a Sacramento County hospital, where the patient, an elderly man with a history of cardiovascular issues, was admitted for symptoms indicative of a potential heart condition.
After he was admitted, the patient began experiencing chest pain and shortness of breath, which hospital staff identified as requiring immediate cardiology consultation. The defendant was the on-call interventional cardiologist that evening. According to hospital records, the attending physician contacted the defendant by phone to discuss the patient’s condition. During the call, the attending physician described the patient’s symptoms and sought guidance on whether intervention by the cardiologist was necessary. The defendant reportedly declined to come to the hospital and explained that the patient’s condition did not require immediate invasive care.
Shortly thereafter, the patient’s condition deteriorated. Despite the attending physician’s efforts to stabilize him, the patient experienced a cardiac arrest and died within hours. The patient’s adult children filed a medical negligence lawsuit against the defendant, claiming that he breached his duty of care by refusing to provide in-person treatment or further consultation. They argued that as the on-call specialist, the defendant was obligated to respond to the hospital’s request and that his failure to do so constituted a breach of both of his duty of care.
The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that he had no legal duty of care to the patient because no physician-patient relationship had been established. He argued that his role as an on-call cardiologist did not automatically create such a physician-patient relationship. He argued that his telephone consultation with the attending physician was insufficient to impose liability. He further argued that the plaintiffs had not provided evidence demonstrating that his involvement — or lack thereof — was the proximate cause of the patient’s death.
The Superior Court of Sacramento County agreed with the defendant, granting summary judgment in his favor. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue of fact regarding the existence of a physician-patient relationship. Because no physician-patient relationship existed, no duty of care existed, which is necessary for a medical malpractice claim.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the physician-patient relationship and the defendant’s duty of care. They argued that the defendant’s on-call status and his consultation with the attending physician created an implicit relationship sufficient to establish a duty of care. The plaintiffs further emphasized that the defendant’s refusal to attend to the patient directly contributed to the fatal outcome. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling.
The Court of Appeal explained that, under California precedent, a physician-patient relationship arises when a doctor affirmatively agrees to provide care or treatment for a patient, creating a contractual or implied agreement. This relationship is the basis for a physician’s duty of care in malpractice claims. Without it, no legal duty arises, and a physician has no obligation to take affirmative actions to assist or protect an individual. The court emphasized that a physician-patient relationship is the foundation for a duty of care, and that tort principles or policy considerations, such as preventing harm, cannot independently create a duty of care without this relationship.
Applying California precedent, the court found that the defendant’s actions did not establish a physician-patient relationship. The court noted that the defendant’s role was limited to providing medical opinions to the attending physician, who retained full responsibility for the patient’s care. This limited involvement, absent any direct treatment or agreement to assume care, was insufficient to create a legal duty under California law.
Consequently, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Ethical obligations for on-call physicians do not necessarily translate into legal duties absent clear evidence of an established relationship or assumption of responsibility.
What This Means for You
Duty is the first element a plaintiff must establish to succeed in a negligence action, and without it, a claim cannot proceed, regardless of the circumstances. For medical malpractice cases, the existence of a physician-patient relationship generally is a prerequisite to demonstrating that duty. This requirement serves to delineate the boundaries of a physician’s legal responsibility and protect doctors from unwarranted liability in situations where no formal or implied relationship exists.
In this case, the plaintiffs sought to establish that the defendant owed a duty of care to their father by emphasizing his role as the on-call cardiologist and his consultation with the attending physician. They argued that these facts created an implicit physician-patient relationship sufficient to establish the duty element. The plaintiffs relied heavily on the premise that on-call physicians are part of the hospital’s care team and, as such, bear an inherent responsibility to provide medical assistance when requested. They argued that the defendant’s refusal to attend to their father deprived the patient of critical expertise that could have changed the outcome.
The plaintiffs also pointed to the phone consultation between the defendant and the attending physician as evidence of a relationship. By discussing the patient’s condition, the plaintiffs argued, the defendant assumed some level of responsibility for the patient’s care. This argument attempted to expand the traditional understanding of a physician-patient relationship to include indirect forms of interaction that arise from the dynamics of modern medical care.
The defendant emphasized that imposing a duty based solely on on-call status would set a troubling precedent. Such a rule could expose physicians to liability for situations where they have no meaningful involvement in a patient’s care, potentially leading to defensive medical practices and an overextension of resources. The defendant’s position rested on the principle that a duty of care must be grounded in a clear, identifiable relationship rather than the mere potential for involvement in a patient’s treatment.
The appellate court’s decision highlights the importance of clearly defining the boundaries of duty in medical malpractice cases. The court upheld the trial court’s finding that no physician-patient relationship existed, emphasizing that duty cannot be established in the absence of affirmative actions by the physician to assume responsibility for the patient’s care. The defendant’s on-call status, while ethically significant, was insufficient to create a legal obligation. Similarly, the phone consultation was deemed too attenuated to establish a relationship, as it lacked the agreement necessary to impose a duty.
For plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases, this decision serves as an important reminder about the challenges of establishing the duty element. It is not enough to show that a physician was available or consulted indirectly. Plaintiffs must present clear evidence that the physician took steps to assume responsibility for the patient’s care. Without it, even the most compelling claims of negligence may fail at the threshold stage.
For healthcare providers, this case reinforces the importance of understanding the legal implications of their on-call responsibilities. While ethical obligations may require responsiveness and cooperation, these do not necessarily translate into legal duties unless a physician explicitly or implicitly agrees to treat a patient. Physicians should be mindful of how their actions, including phone consultations or other indirect interactions, may be interpreted in the context of legal proceedings.
Hospitals and healthcare institutions should ensure that their on-call protocols are clearly defined. Establishing guidelines that clarify the expectations and limits of on-call responsibilities can help prevent disputes about whether a physician assumed a duty of care. Healthcare providers also should document their interactions carefully to avoid misunderstandings about their role in a patient’s treatment. If, in this case, the on-call cardiologist had given a direct order for care of the patient to a healthcare provider, such as a nurse and that order was documented in the patient’s medical record as a telephone order, a duty of care could have been established. At that point, the provision of care provided would be based on the order given by the cardiologist. The cardiologist made the decision not to come in based on information received by the attending physician, not from direct examination of the patient. The duty of care belonged to the attending, who may or may not have had further responsibilities in this patient’s care.
What this case should demonstrate to on-call medical staff and hospital leadership is the importance of physician-to-physician communication when requesting physician consultation. Physicians often will write an order for a non-independent practitioner, such as a nurse or clerical staff, to contact a consultant. If the consultant responds with orders, a relationship is established, even before that consultant sees the patient. Unfortunately, this happens too often and can lead to a lack of clarity regarding who has the duty of care. It is the responsibility of the attending physician, emergency room physician, hospitalist, or other physician who has the duty of care, to communicate directly with other specialists or experts they want to provide consultation.
This case also highlights the value of strong legal representation in navigating the complexities of duty in medical malpractice cases. For plaintiffs, identifying and articulating the basis for a physician’s duty is crucial to surviving motions for summary judgment. For defendants, challenging the duty element can serve as a powerful defense strategy, particularly when the physician’s involvement with the patient is limited or indirect.
Ultimately, this case reinforces the importance of clearly delineating the boundaries of duty in medical malpractice claims. By doing so, courts can ensure that liability is imposed only in cases where a physician has a clear and identifiable obligation to a patient, thereby protecting both patients and healthcare providers within the framework of the law. However, it is important to note that this case was decided under California law, and it is always crucial to obtain advice from knowledgeable counsel in your jurisdiction, where the law may differ.
Reference
- Decided on August 26, 2024, in the Court of Appeal, Third District, California, Case No. C098433.
Damian D. Capozzola, Esq., The Law Offices of Damian D. Capozzola, Los Angeles
Jamie Terrence, RN, President and Founder, Healthcare Risk Services, Former Director of Risk Management Services (2004-2013), California Hospital Medical Center, Los Angeles
The Court of Appeal for California’s Third District recently upheld a summary judgment in favor of a cardiologist in a medical malpractice case. The lawsuit was brought by the adult children of a patient who died after experiencing a cardiac emergency at a Sacramento County hospital. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, the on-call interventional cardiologist, negligently refused to provide care, ultimately contributing to their father’s death.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content