Search

Duty of care is a critical component of any negligence claim necessary to establish liability. It is well recognized at common law that a physician owes a duty to advise a patient but is not mandated to take affirmative measures outside the physician-patient relationship to protect a third-party. Health care providers may also be responsible for oversight, or the failure to safeguard a patient, due to a special relationship they undertake, such as failing to properly diagnose or recommend an appropriate treatment plan. Recently, the courts have struggled over whether public policy and fairness require the expansion of the law to impose liability upon health care providers for injuries sustained by third parties caused by patients in motor vehicle accidents. Various theories are advanced to establish liability, such as the physician being negligent by violating a statute created to protect the public through negligence per se, establishing prima facie negligence, or offering evidence of carelessness. A clear court consensus has failed to emerge whether the common law should be expanded in favor of responsibility. This article will provide a brief history of the efforts to enlarge physician liability to third parties. It will then focus on the cases that have arisen against physicians by a third party injured in a motor vehicle accident related to a patient’s medical condition or medication side-effects. This is a dilemma confronting the courts on a regular basis.

House, a medical drama about an infectious disease specialist, entertained television audiences for years as the irascible and pill-popping physician solved medical mysteries with the zeal of a modern-day Sherlock Holmes while playing mind games with his coworkers. Uncanny intuition and eccentric thinking earned the physician great respect but his bullish behavior and antisocial tendencies were a distraction at the hospital. Not only did Dr. House clash with his fellow physicians but he also insulted patients, flouted hospital rules and caused great conflict with the hospital administrators. In fact, his actions often crossed the line into obnoxiousness and rage causing the hospital staff to tiptoe around his dysfunctional behavior. In the real world, Dr. House would be labeled a “disruptive physician” and would be subjected to disciplinary action including the loss of his hospital privileges. This article will explore the problems caused by being labeled a disruptive physician in a legal context with a focus on the peer review process and the relevant court cases.