Chapter 5: Contracts and Intentional Torts Flashcards
Which of the following is NOT one of the four conditions required for a valid contract?
A) Both parties must be legally competent
B) There must be a meeting of the minds
C) Consideration must be given
D) The contract must be in writing
D) The contract must be in writing
While written contracts provide better evidence, many valid contracts can be oral or implied - they don’t require written documentation to be legally enforceable.
What is consideration in contract law?
A) A promise to do something not otherwise required
B) The signatures of both parties
C) The act of thinking carefully about a contract
D) The approval of a lawyer
A) A promise to do something not otherwise required
Consideration is the price paid for the contract - something of value exchanged. It can be money, a promise to do something you wouldn’t otherwise be required to do, or a promise to refrain from doing something you’d otherwise be able to do.
What type of contract is formed when you order food at a restaurant?
A) Express written contract
B) Express oral contract
C) Implied contract
D) Void contract
C) Implied contract
The restaurant scenario demonstrates an implied contract - the patron implicitly offers “If you serve me what I order, I will pay the bill” and the restaurant accepts by taking the order and serving the food.
What is the legal foundation of the physician-patient relationship?
A) Tort law
B) Contract law
C) Criminal law
D) Administrative law
B) Contract law
The physician-patient relationship is based on contract principles because the physician agrees to provide treatment in return for payment.
In the absence of a contract between a physician and patient, what legal duty does the physician typically have toward the patient?
A) The duty to provide emergency care
B) The duty to refer to another physician
C) No legal obligation to treat
D) The duty to stabilize the patient’s condition
C) No legal obligation to treat
In the absence of a contract between physician and patient, the law usually imposes no duty on the physician to treat the patient, although other duties may be imposed by law in specific circumstances.
The case of Childs v. Weis (1969) illustrates which principle?
A) A physician must always treat emergencies
B) A physician has no duty to treat without a physician-patient relationship
C) Hospitals must always accept and treat pregnant women
D) Patients can never be transferred to another facility
B) A physician has no duty to treat without a physician-patient relationship
In Childs v. Weis, the court held that the physician had no duty to the pregnant woman because no physician-patient relationship had been established, though this case predates current emergency care standards.
Which of the following situations would most likely create a physician-patient relationship?
A) A casual hallway consultation between two physicians about an unnamed patient
B) A preemployment physical examination
C) A pathologist analyzing a biopsy specimen
D) A physician discussing a hypothetical case at a conference
C) A pathologist analyzing a biopsy specimen
Pathologists have a relationship with patients even though they may never see the patients directly - the relationship exists because they are involved in the patient’s diagnosis and treatment.
In Oliver v. Brock, why did the court determine that Dr. Brock did not have a physician-patient relationship with the patient?
A) Dr. Brock never saw the patient or knew her name
B) Dr. Brock was simply answering a casual question from another physician
C) The patient never paid Dr. Brock for services
D) Both A and B
D) Both A and B
The court found no doctor-patient relationship because Dr. Brock never saw the patient, did not know her name, and was merely providing an informal, gratuitous opinion to another physician during a casual conversation.
Under the dual capacity doctrine, when might an employer be liable outside of workers’ compensation?
A) When the employer terminates the employee
B) When the employer also acts as a healthcare provider
C) When the employer fails to provide workers’ compensation
D) When the employee violates safety protocols
B) When the employer also acts as a healthcare provider
Under the dual capacity doctrine, an employer operating in two capacities (such as employer and healthcare provider) might have obligations outside the employment relationship, potentially allowing a second cause of action beyond workers’ compensation.
Which case illustrates the dual capacity doctrine allowing an employee to sue an employer despite workers’ compensation laws?
A) Guy v. Arthur H. Thomas Co.
B) Suburban Hospital v. Kirson
C) Payton v. Weaver
D) Leach v. Drummond Medical Group, Inc.
A) Guy v. Arthur H. Thomas Co.
In Guy v. Arthur H. Thomas Co., the court held that while the hospital as an employer was liable for workers’ compensation benefits, in its second capacity as a hospital it was also liable for medical negligence.
What is the approach taken by the majority of courts regarding the dual capacity doctrine in workers’ compensation cases?
A) They generally apply the doctrine broadly
B) They generally reject the doctrine
C) They apply the doctrine only in surgical cases
D) They apply the doctrine only when requested by an injured employee
B) They generally reject the doctrine
As illustrated in Suburban Hospital v. Kirson, the majority of courts reject the dual capacity doctrine, holding that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries, even when treatment of those injuries is involved.
In a physician-patient contract, what does the physician typically promise?
A) To cure the patient
B) To use best efforts to treat the patient
C) Results that meet specific metrics
D) To treat the patient at a fixed cost
B) To use best efforts to treat the patient
In the typical contract, the physician does not promise to cure the patient, only to use best efforts to diagnose and treat the patient in accordance with accepted standards of practice.
When might a physician be liable for breach of warranty in healthcare?
A) When treatment fails despite proper care
B) When the physician specifically guarantees a result but fails to achieve it
C) When the patient misunderstands instructions
D) When a different physician provides the care
B) When the physician specifically guarantees a result but fails to achieve it
A physician who guarantees a specific result gives the patient a contractual basis for a lawsuit if the treatment is not successful, even if it was performed skillfully.
In Sullivan v. O’Connor, what was the basis for the plaintiff’s successful lawsuit?
A) The surgeon was negligent during the procedure
B) The surgeon breached a guarantee to enhance the patient’s appearance
C) The surgeon operated on the wrong body part
D) The surgeon performed the procedure without consent
B) The surgeon breached a guarantee to enhance the patient’s appearance
In Sullivan v. O’Connor, the professional entertainer won her case because the surgeon had promised the cosmetic surgery would “enhance her beauty and improve her appearance,” but after multiple surgeries, her nose looked worse.
Which of the following statements about physician withdrawal from a patient case is TRUE?
A) A physician can withdraw at any time without notice
B) A physician cannot withdraw until the patient is cured
C) A physician must give reasonable notice to allow the patient to find another provider
D) A physician can only withdraw if the patient consents
C) A physician must give reasonable notice to allow the patient to find another provider
To avoid claims of abandonment, a physician must give reasonable notice of withdrawal, allowing the patient sufficient time to secure the services of another physician.
What constitutes “abandonment” in the physician-patient relationship?
A) Terminating care after the patient is cured
B) Transferring the patient to another qualified physician with consent
C) Withdrawing from a case without giving the patient time to find another physician
D) Referring a patient to a specialist
C) Withdrawing from a case without giving the patient time to find another physician
Abandonment occurs when a physician withdraws from treating a patient without giving adequate notice or opportunity for the patient to secure another physician’s services.
In Johnson v. Vaughn, what actions by Dr. Vaughn led to a claim of abandonment?
A) He refused to sign the patient’s insurance forms
B) He became irate when another doctor tried to help and refused to release the patient
C) He forgot to follow up with the patient after surgery
D) He charged the patient an excessive fee
B) He became irate when another doctor tried to help and refused to release the patient
Dr. Vaughn became “irate and vulgar” when another doctor tried to help his critically injured patient, refused to release the patient without being paid $50, and delayed treatment that was urgently needed.
In the case of Payton v. Weaver, why did the court allow Dr. Weaver to terminate his relationship with the patient?
A) The patient had been cured
B) The patient violated conditions of cooperation and affected other patients
C) The patient couldn’t pay for treatment
D) The patient had committed a crime
B) The patient violated conditions of cooperation and affected other patients
The court found that Payton (who had end-stage renal disease) had violated previous conditions of cooperation and in the process adversely affected other dialysis patients, justifying Dr. Weaver’s withdrawal.
In Leach v. Drummond Medical Group, Inc., why did the court rule the medical group must continue treating the patients?
A) The patients had a medical emergency
B) The medical group was the only available provider within 100 miles
C) The patients had properly filed complaints through appropriate channels
D) Both B and C
D) Both B and C
The court ruled the group must continue care because it was the only medical group available within 100 miles, and the patients had not publicly criticized the doctors but only discreetly contacted the appropriate state agency.
In Alexandridis v. Jewett, what was the basis for the breach of contract claim?
A) The physicians charged more than promised
B) The physicians promised one would personally deliver the baby but failed to do so
C) The physicians performed an unnecessary procedure
D) The physicians didn’t provide follow-up care
B) The physicians promised one would personally deliver the baby but failed to do so
The obstetricians agreed that one of them would personally deliver the patient’s child, but instead, a first-year resident who was less skilled performed the delivery and damaged the patient during the process.
In Stewart v. Rudner, why was the physician liable for breach of contract?
A) He failed to show up for the delivery
B) He promised a cesarean section but a vaginal delivery occurred
C) He charged more than the agreed amount
D) He used an experimental procedure without consent
B) He promised a cesarean section but a vaginal delivery occurred
The physician had promised to arrange for an obstetrician to deliver the child by cesarean section but failed to communicate this to the attending physician, resulting in a vaginal delivery and stillbirth.
What are the three categories of torts mentioned in the text?
A) Civil, criminal, and administrative
B) Intentional, negligent, and strict liability
C) Personal injury, property damage, and defamation
D) Medical, legal, and professional
B) Intentional, negligent, and strict liability
Torts are divided into three categories: intentional torts (wrongful, premeditated actions), negligence (unintentional failure to exercise reasonable care), and strict liability (liability without fault for high-risk activities).
What is the difference between assault and battery?
A) Assault is physical, battery is verbal
B) Assault creates apprehension of harmful contact, battery is actual touching
C) Assault is a misdemeanor, battery is a felony
D) Assault requires intent, battery does not
B) Assault creates apprehension of harmful contact, battery is actual touching
Assault is conduct that places a person in apprehension of being touched in a harmful or offensive way, while battery is the actual touching without consent.
When a physician performs surgery without patient consent, this could constitute:
A) Fraud
B) Battery
C) Defamation
D) Breach of contract
B) Battery
Operating on a patient without consent constitutes battery - the intentional tort of touching without permission.
In Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, why was the doctor liable for battery?
A) The doctor used excessive force during an examination
B) The doctor operated when the patient had consented only to an examination
C) The doctor treated the wrong patient
D) The doctor allowed students to observe without permission
B) The doctor operated when the patient had consented only to an examination
The doctor was liable for battery after operating on a patient who had consented only to an examination under anesthesia but not to an operation.
Which of the following would NOT typically excuse a surgeon for operating beyond the scope of original consent?
A) A life-threatening emergency discovered during surgery
B) The surgeon’s preference for a different procedure
C) Finding a condition that poses immediate danger if left untreated
D) Discovering the original problem is in a different location than expected
B) The surgeon’s preference for a different procedure
A surgeon’s mere preference for a different procedure would not justify exceeding the scope of consent, unlike emergencies or immediate dangers that couldn’t have been anticipated.
What is the difference between libel and slander?
A) Libel is written defamation, slander is oral defamation
B) Libel is more serious than slander
C) Libel requires proof of damages, slander does not
D) Libel applies to public figures, slander to private citizens
A) Libel is written defamation, slander is oral defamation
In defamation law, libel refers to written defamatory statements, while slander refers to oral defamatory statements.
For a defamatory statement to be actionable, it must be:
A) Untrue
B) Published to a third party
C) Harmful to reputation
D) All of the above
D) All of the above
For a defamation claim to succeed, the statement must be untrue, published (communicated to someone other than the plaintiff), and harmful to the plaintiff’s reputation.
What defense to defamation is illustrated in Thornburg v. Long?
A) Truth
B) Privilege
C) Opinion
D) Retraction
B) Privilege
In Thornburg v. Long, the court held that the specialist’s statement was privileged because he had a duty to communicate information to the patient’s physician, even though the information turned out to be incorrect.
The tort of false imprisonment in healthcare might involve:
A) Billing a patient for services not provided
B) Unlawfully restricting a patient’s freedom
C) Taking a patient’s photo without consent
D) Providing treatment outside a physician’s area of expertise
B) Unlawfully restricting a patient’s freedom
False imprisonment arises from unlawful restriction of a person’s freedom, such as preventing a patient from leaving a facility or holding them incommunicado.
In Stowers v. Wolodzko, what specific action constituted false imprisonment?
A) Admitting the patient to a mental hospital
B) Holding the patient incommunicado and preventing her from calling an attorney
C) Medicating the patient against her will
D) Diagnosing the patient without her consent
B) Holding the patient incommunicado and preventing her from calling an attorney
Although the patient was lawfully committed, the psychiatrist committed false imprisonment by holding her incommunicado and preventing her from calling an attorney or relatives to seek release.
The use of “before and after” photos of a patient’s cosmetic surgery without permission could constitute:
A) Assault
B) Battery
C) Invasion of privacy
D) Misrepresentation
C) Invasion of privacy
Using patient photos without permission, as in Vassiliades v. Garfinckel’s, Brooks Bros., constitutes invasion of privacy - subjecting a patient to unwanted publicity.
When is disclosure of confidential patient information legally permitted?
A) When the information is already known in the community
B) When required by state or federal law
C) When the patient has expired
D) When the information is relatively insignificant
B) When required by state or federal law
Disclosure of confidential information is permitted when required by state or federal law, such as for quality assurance activities, suspected child abuse reports, or communicable disease reporting.
Which of the following would NOT typically require mandatory reporting of patient information?
A) Gunshot wounds
B) Child abuse
C) Communicable diseases
D) Minor surgeries
D) Minor surgeries
Healthcare providers are not typically required to report minor surgeries to authorities, unlike gunshot wounds, child abuse, and communicable diseases which often have mandatory reporting requirements.
In Johnson v. McMurray, why was the physician held liable for fraud?
A) He concealed that he had left a surgical sponge in the patient
B) He participated in surgery after the patient had specifically requested he not be involved
C) He charged for services not performed
D) He misrepresented his qualifications
B) He participated in surgery after the patient had specifically requested he not be involved
Dr. McMurray was held liable for fraud because he assisted in the follow-up surgery despite the patient specifically asking that he not participate in the procedure.
The tort of “outrage” or “intentional infliction of emotional distress” requires:
A) Physical injury
B) Provable monetary damages
C) Extreme and offensive conduct
D) Multiple incidents of misconduct
C) Extreme and offensive conduct
The tort of outrage arises from extreme and offensive conduct by the defendant that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress.
In Rockhill v. Pollard, what actions by the physician constituted “outrage”?
A) Excessive fees for emergency treatment
B) Rudeness, inadequate examination of an injured baby, and sending the family to wait outside in freezing weather
C) Refusing to provide a referral to a specialist
D) Misdiagnosis of the patient’s condition
B) Rudeness, inadequate examination of an injured baby, and sending the family to wait outside in freezing weather
The physician’s conduct - being rude, giving only a cursory examination to an unconscious infant, and sending the injured family to wait outside in freezing temperatures - was sufficiently outrageous to support a claim.
What is the most common type of malpractice case in healthcare?
A) Breach of contract
B) Intentional tort
C) Negligence
D) Strict liability
C) Negligence
Negligence is the most common type of malpractice case, though medical malpractice can also be based on breach of contract or intentional torts.
Why might a patient allege multiple causes of action (e.g., both negligence and breach of contract) in a malpractice suit?
A) To increase potential monetary damages
B) To create flexibility in proving the case and potentially avoid limitations of one theory
C) To ensure the case goes to trial
D) To force the defendant to hire multiple lawyers
B) To create flexibility in proving the case and potentially avoid limitations of one theory
Alleging multiple causes of action creates flexibility in proving the case and may help overcome limitations of one theory, such as statutes of limitations that might apply differently to different claims.
Explain the intersection of contract principles and the physician-patient relationship.
The physician-patient relationship is fundamentally based on contract principles. The physician offers to provide treatment according to accepted standards, and the patient (implicitly or explicitly) agrees to pay for these services.
This contractual relationship creates legal duties for both parties and establishes the framework for potential liability claims. Unlike typical contracts, the physician doesn’t promise specific results (unless explicitly guaranteed), only appropriate treatment.
The contractual nature also affects how the relationship can be terminated and what constitutes abandonment.
Compare and contrast the facts and outcomes of the dual capacity doctrine cases (Guy v. Arthur H. Thomas Co. and Suburban Hospital v. Kirson).
- In Guy, the Ohio Supreme Court applied the dual capacity doctrine: while the hospital was immune as an employer under workers’ comp, it was separately liable as a healthcare provider for failing to diagnose an employee’s mercury poisoning.
- In Kirson, Maryland rejected dual capacity, holding workers’ comp was the exclusive remedy even when the hospital’s negligent care aggravated a workplace injury.
- Kirson represents the majority approach; Guy represents the minority view adopted in few jurisdictions.
Discuss the legal and ethical implications of physicians withdrawing from treatment relationships with difficult patients, referencing Payton v. Weaver and Leach v. Drummond Medical Group, Inc.
These cases illustrate the tension between physician autonomy and patient needs. In Payton, the court permitted withdrawal because the patient had violated reasonable cooperation conditions and affected other patients’ care, despite her serious condition (ESRD).
In Leach, the court required continued treatment because the group was the only provider within 100 miles and the patients had appropriately filed complaints.
The key factors in these decisions include:
notice period, patient access to alternative care, patient behavior, provider type (individual vs. group), and whether the patient properly exercised their rights.
These cases demonstrate that while physicians can terminate relationships with difficult patients, this right is balanced against patients’ needs and circumstances.
What constitutes a valid defense against an allegation of abandonment by a physician?
Valid defenses against abandonment claims include:
(1) patient dismissal of the physician,
(2) patient consent to the physician’s withdrawal,
(3) sufficient notice allowing the patient time to find another qualified provider,
(4) finding a qualified substitute acceptable to the patient,
(5) limiting practice to certain specialties or geographic areas when made clear to patients,
(6) physician illness that prevents treatment, and
(7) the patient’s condition being resolved. The key element in most successful defenses is ensuring continuity of care through proper notice, transfer of responsibility, or resolution of the patient’s medical needs.
Explain how the tort of battery applies differently in healthcare settings compared to everyday situations.
In healthcare, battery often occurs without malicious intent but through failure to obtain proper consent. Unlike everyday battery, healthcare battery typically involves:
(1) performing procedures without consent,
(2) exceeding the scope of consent given, or
(3) operating based on uninformed consent.
The law recognizes exceptions for emergency situations where consent cannot be obtained and immediate action is necessary to prevent serious harm. Healthcare providers can also be liable for battery when the wrong procedure is performed or when a different provider than the one authorized performs the procedure, even when the technical care is appropriate.
How does breach of warranty differ from traditional medical negligence, and why might it be easier to prove?
Breach of warranty occurs when a physician guarantees a specific result but fails to achieve it, whereas negligence requires proving deviation from the standard of care.
Warranty claims are easier to prove because the plaintiff only needs to show:
(1) the physician made a specific guarantee,
(2) the promised result wasn’t achieved, and
(3) damages resulted.
The plaintiff doesn’t need expert testimony establishing standard of care or causation. In cases like Guilmet v. Campbell, the physician’s specific promises about outcomes created liability even when the jury found no negligence in the procedure itself.
This explains why some states have enacted laws requiring medical guarantees to be in writing to be enforceable.
Analyze the legal principles in Oliver v. Brock regarding when informal physician consultations create doctor-patient relationships.
Oliver v. Brock established that informal, casual consultations between physicians typically don’t create a doctor-patient relationship with legal duties.
The court considered several key factors:
(1) Dr. Brock never saw the patient,
(2) he didn’t know her name,
(3) the consultation was informal and gratuitous,
(4) no fee was charged, and
(5) the patient wasn’t aware of the consultation. The court recognized that imposing liability would discourage valuable professional knowledge-sharing.
This ruling protects “curbside consultations” that benefit medical education and patient care, while maintaining that formal consultations with direct patient involvement do create legal duties.
Examine the similarities and differences between the breach of confidentiality tort and HIPAA violations.
Both breach of confidentiality torts and HIPAA violations involve unauthorized disclosure of patient information, but they differ in important ways. The tort is a common law cause of action allowing patients to sue for damages when confidential information is wrongfully disclosed, as in the Holyoke case where staff publicly disclosed a patient’s treatment decisions.
HIPAA, by contrast, is a federal regulatory framework with civil and criminal penalties enforced by government agencies, not private lawsuits. While HIPAA violations may strengthen a breach of confidentiality claim, they don’t automatically create tort liability.
The tort focuses on the harm to the individual patient, while HIPAA emphasizes systemic compliance with privacy standards.
Regarding Stowers v. Wolodzko from “The Court Decides” section, what rights did the court determine psychiatric patients have while involuntarily committed, and why?
In Stowers, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that psychiatric patients, even when lawfully committed, retain fundamental rights to communicate with attorneys and relatives to seek release. The court recognized that psychiatrists hold tremendous power over confined patients, making outside communication essential as a check against potential abuses.
The court emphasized that even people accused of crimes have the right to legal counsel, so psychiatric patients deserve similar protections. The ruling balanced therapeutic needs against individual rights, concluding that while certain restrictions might be appropriate, completely preventing patients from contacting attorneys or relatives to seek release constitutes false imprisonment and violates their basic rights to due process.
How might abandonment cases be approached differently in the era of telehealth and electronic communication? Consider the principles from cases like Johnson v. Vaughn.
In the telehealth era, abandonment principles must be adapted to virtual care relationships.
Key considerations include:
(1) establishing when a telehealth relationship formally begins and ends,
(2) ensuring patients understand follow-up expectations in virtual settings,
(3) maintaining electronic communication channels for reasonable periods after consultations,
(4) providing clear documentation of care transitions, and
(5) ensuring geographic limitations are explained to patients who may be physically distant.
Unlike Johnson v. Vaughn where physical presence was expected, modern abandonment cases must consider whether proper virtual follow-up was provided and whether telehealth providers made appropriate arrangements for in-person care when needed.
Documentation of electronic communications becomes crucial evidence in these cases.
Compare the legal and ethical considerations in breach of warranty cases like Sullivan v. O’Connor and Guilmet v. Campbell, and explain why states have enacted statutes requiring written guarantees.
Both Sullivan and Guilmet demonstrate the legal risks when physicians make specific promises about treatment outcomes. In Sullivan, the cosmetic surgeon guaranteed enhanced appearance but left the patient worse off, while in Guilmet, the physician promised a “simple operation” with “no danger” that resulted in severe complications. These cases show courts will hold physicians to their specific promises even when technically competent care was provided.
States enacted written guarantee requirements because:
(1) juries tend to sympathize with injured patients,
(2) verbal statements can be misremembered or misinterpreted,
(3) patients may hear optimistic explanations as guarantees, and
(4) physicians need protection from casual statements being treated as contractual obligations.
These statutes balance protecting physicians from unintended warranties while still allowing patients to rely on explicit, documented guarantees.
Evaluate the legal decision in Widgeon v. Eastern Shore Hospital Center regarding civil rights violations in involuntary commitment. What are the implications for healthcare administrators?
Widgeon established that involuntary commitment without proper evidence or process can violate constitutional and civil rights, creating liability beyond ordinary torts.
For healthcare administrators, this means:
(1) implementing robust verification procedures for commitment requests,
(2) ensuring staff understand legal requirements for involuntary holds,
(3) maintaining documentation of clinical findings supporting commitment decisions,
(4) establishing processes for patients to contact attorneys/family,
(5) conducting regular reviews of continuing commitment necessity, and
(6) training staff to recognize potential abuse of commitment procedures by family members with ulterior motives.
The case demonstrates that even when following apparent legal processes, facilities must ensure substantive rights are protected to avoid civil rights liability, which typically involves higher damages and fewer limitations than ordinary malpractice claims.
Consideration
Essentially, payment; something of value (not necessarily money) that is given (or promised) in return for what is received (or promised).
Exculpatory
Absolving or clearing of blame; from Latin ex (from) + culpa (guilt). Exculpatory contracts attempt to excuse one party from liability in advance.
Good Samaritan statutes
Provisions of law that provide immunity from liability for persons who provide emergency care at the scene of an accident.
Liability
Legal responsibility for one’s acts or omissions.
Cause of action
The basis of a lawsuit; sufficient legal grounds and alleged facts that, if proven, would constitute all the requirements for the plaintiff to prevail.
Informed consent
Agreement to permit a medical procedure after disclosure of all relevant facts needed to make an intelligent decision.
Tort
A civil offense not founded on contract; a failure to conduct oneself in a manner considered proper under the given circumstances.
Intentional tort
A category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor.
Tortfeasor
A wrongdoer; a person who commits a tort.
Negligence
Failure to comply with established standards for the protection of others; departure from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under the same or similar circumstances.
Strict liability
Automatic responsibility (without having to prove negligence) for damages as a result of possession or use of inherently dangerous equipment (e.g., explosives), wild and poisonous animals, or assault weapons.
Defamation
The act of making untrue statements about another that damage the person’s reputation. Written defamation is libel, and oral defamation is slander.
Fiduciary
An individual or entity (e.g., a bank, a trust company) that has the power and duty to act for another (the beneficiary) under circumstances that require trust, good faith, and honesty.
Statute of limitation
A law setting the maximum period one can wait before filing a lawsuit, depending on the type of case or claim.
Prima facie
Containing enough evidence to win unless the defendant presents contradictory evidence. Literally means “at first sight” or “on its face.”
Ex parte hearing
A hearing in which only one party is present, without requiring notice to or attendance by other parties to the case.
Oliver v. Brock
Case establishing that informal, casual consultations between physicians about a patient do not create a physician-patient relationship with associated duties. The consulted physician who never saw the patient or knew her name was not liable for the outcome.
Guy v. Arthur H. Thomas Co.
Ohio case applying the dual capacity doctrine, holding that a hospital was liable for workers’ compensation as an employer but also liable for medical negligence in its separate capacity as a hospital when it failed to diagnose an employee’s mercury poisoning.
Suburban Hospital v. Kirson
Maryland case rejecting the dual capacity doctrine, holding that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy even when the hospital’s negligence aggravated an employee’s workplace injury, representing the majority approach in the United States.
Payton v. Weaver
Case permitting a physician to terminate care for an uncooperative end-stage renal disease patient after reasonable notice, despite her medical needs, because she violated conditions of cooperation and adversely affected other dialysis patients.
Leach v. Drummond Medical Group, Inc.
Case requiring a medical group to continue treating patients who had filed complaints with a state agency, because the group was the only provider within 100 miles and the patients had appropriately exercised their rights through proper channels.
Alexandridis v. Jewett
Case finding physicians potentially liable for breach of contract when they promised that one of them would personally deliver a baby but instead the delivery was performed by a less skilled resident who caused injury to the patient.
Stewart v. Rudner
Case where a physician was liable for breach of contract after promising to arrange for a cesarean section but failing to communicate this to the attending physician, resulting in a vaginal delivery and stillbirth.
Sullivan v. O’Connor
Case where a cosmetic surgeon was liable for breach of warranty after promising to enhance a professional entertainer’s appearance but leaving her nose looking worse after multiple surgeries.
Guilmet v. Campbell
Michigan case where physicians were found liable for breach of warranty despite not being negligent, because they promised specific outcomes including “no danger” and that the patient could “throw away your pill box” after a ulcer operation that resulted in severe complications.
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
Landmark case establishing that a doctor was liable for battery after operating on a patient who had consented only to an examination under anesthesia but not to an operation, helping establish the principle of informed consent.
Burton v. Leftwich
Case where a physician was found liable for battery after smacking a child’s thigh several times while trying to remove sutures, leaving visible bruises for three weeks.
Mohr v. Williams
Case where a surgeon was found liable for assault and battery after operating on the patient’s left ear when consent had only been given for surgery on the right ear, even though the left ear had a greater medical need.
Thornburg v. Long
Case illustrating privileged communication between physicians, where a specialist was not liable for defamation after incorrectly reporting a patient had syphilis because he had a duty to communicate with the family physician and did so with reasonable skill.
Stowers v. Wolodzko
Michigan case establishing that a psychiatrist committed false imprisonment by holding a patient incommunicado and preventing her from contacting an attorney or relatives to seek release, even though she was lawfully committed to the mental hospital.
Vassiliades v. Garfinckel’s, Brooks Bros.
Case holding a physician and department store liable for invasion of privacy when they used “before” and “after” photographs of the plaintiff’s cosmetic surgery without her permission.
Johnson v. McMurray
Case finding physicians liable for fraud when one doctor participated in surgery after the patient had specifically requested he not be involved following his error of leaving a surgical sponge in the patient’s body.
Rockhill v. Pollard
Case illustrating the tort of outrage/intentional infliction of emotional distress when a physician was rude to accident victims, gave only a cursory exam to an unconscious infant, and made them wait outside in freezing weather.
Widgeon v. Eastern Shore Hospital Center
Case establishing that involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility without proper evidence can constitute a violation of civil rights, allowing claims beyond ordinary tort actions when a patient was committed based on false testimony.
Hundley v. Martinez
Case allowing a patient to bring suit after the statute of limitations expired because the ophthalmologist had repeatedly assured the patient his “eye was all right” when in fact permanent damage had occurred, constituting fraudulent concealment.
Tresemer v. Barke
Case extending a physician’s duty to patients even after the doctor-patient relationship ended, holding a physician had a duty to warn a former patient about risks of an IUD he had implanted years earlier.
Childs v. Weis
1969 Texas case holding that a physician had no duty to treat a hemorrhaging pregnant woman because no physician-patient relationship had been established, illustrating the contractual nature of the relationship (though predating modern emergency care standards).
James v. United States
Case finding liability for a physician who failed to inform a job applicant about an abnormality on a pre-employment chest X-ray, establishing that even without a traditional physician-patient relationship, some limited duty may exist.
McNamara v. Emmons
Case holding that a physician was justified in limiting his practice to his geographic area and refusing to travel to another town to treat a patient, establishing that physicians may reasonably limit the scope of their practice.
Freese v. Lemmon
Case establishing that a physician might be liable to third parties injured by a patient when the physician negligently advised a patient with seizures that he could operate an automobile.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
Landmark case establishing that a doctor has a duty to use reasonable care to warn persons threatened by a patient’s condition, even if it means breaching confidentiality.
Brady v. Hopper
Case holding that John Hinckley Jr.’s psychiatrist owed no duty to those injured in the assassination attempt on President Reagan because there was no evidence Hinckley had made specific threats suggesting his intentions.
Norton v. Hamilton
Case holding that a physician’s withdrawal from treating a woman in labor without giving her husband enough time to find another doctor constituted abandonment.
Johnson v. Vaughn
1963 Kentucky case finding abandonment when a doctor became irate when another physician tried to help his critically injured patient, refused to release the patient without payment, and delayed urgent treatment.
Barnett v. Bachrach
Case justifying a surgeon’s decision to operate beyond the scope of original consent when he discovered acute appendicitis while operating for an apparent ectopic pregnancy, establishing the emergency exception to consent requirements.
Shoemaker v. Friedberg
Case where a physician was not liable for defamation after writing a letter to a patient stating she had a venereal disease because the patient herself showed the letter to others, making the diagnosis public.
Mattocks v. Bell
Case where a medical student who slapped a child patient who had clamped her teeth on his finger was not liable for battery because the force used was judged reasonable under the circumstances.
Bilateral contract
A contract where both parties exchange promises and have duties to perform. The physician-patient relationship is bilateral: the physician agrees to provide treatment according to standards, and the patient agrees to pay.
Express contract
A contract in which the terms are stated explicitly, either orally or in writing. Example: signing forms at a doctor’s office agreeing to payment terms.
Implied contract
A contract formed by actions rather than explicit words. Example: making a follow-up appointment with a doctor creates an implied agreement to continue treatment.
Abandonment
The unilateral termination of the physician-patient relationship by the physician without reasonable notice or providing for appropriate continuity of care when the patient still needs medical attention.
Breach of warranty
When a physician guarantees a specific result from treatment but fails to achieve it, creating liability even when the treatment was performed competently and without negligence.
Assault
Conduct that places a person in apprehension of being touched in a way that is insulting, provoking, or physically harmful, without consent or legal authority.
Battery
The actual touching of another person without consent or legal authority. In healthcare, performing procedures without proper consent constitutes battery.
Libel
Written defamation; making false written statements that damage another person’s reputation.
Slander
Oral defamation; making false spoken statements that damage another person’s reputation.
False imprisonment
The unlawful restraint of a person’s freedom of movement. In healthcare, it can occur when patients are unlawfully prevented from leaving a facility or contacting others.
Invasion of privacy
Subjecting a patient to unwanted publicity or using their information/images without permission, such as using patient photos for advertising without consent.
Breach of confidentiality
Wrongful disclosure of a patient’s confidential information without proper authorization, violating the fiduciary duty to protect private information.
Misrepresentation
Either fraudulent (intentional) or negligent false representation of facts that leads another person to make decisions based on the falsehood. In healthcare, can involve misrepresenting treatment outcomes.
Outrage
lso called intentional infliction of emotional distress; arises from extreme and offensive conduct by the defendant that causes severe emotional distress to the plaintiff.
