Dixon v. Siwy
1996 Ind. App. LEXIS 160, 1996 WL 78372, 661 NE2d 600 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician-patient relationship, which is a prerequisite for a medical malpractice claim, cannot be established without the physician performing some affirmative act for the patient's benefit and with the physician's knowledge. The mere appearance of a physician's name on a consent form, without their knowledge or participation in the patient's care, is insufficient to create such a relationship.
Facts:
- In 1987, Debra Dixon received breast implants.
- On October 15, 1991, Dixon sought treatment at Wishard Memorial Hospital for complications with her implants.
- Dixon consulted with Dr. Janet Turkle, a resident in the hospital's plastic surgery training program.
- Dixon signed a consent form that named Dr. Barbara K. Siwy, a faculty member, as the doctor performing the procedure.
- It was common practice at the hospital for residents to write a faculty doctor's name on consent forms, regardless of that doctor's actual involvement.
- Dr. Turkle performed a left breast closed-capsular rupture procedure on Dixon.
- Dr. Siwy never saw Dixon, was not consulted by Dr. Turkle, and was entirely unaware of Dixon's condition or the procedure being performed.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra Dixon filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance against Dr. Siwy, Dr. Turkle, and Wishard Memorial Hospital.
- Dr. Siwy filed a 'Motion for Preliminary Determination of Law' with the trial court, seeking dismissal of the complaint against her.
- The trial court granted Dr. Siwy's motion and dismissed the claim against her.
- Dixon, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a physician-patient relationship exist, giving rise to a duty of care, when a physician's name is placed on a patient's consent form without the physician's knowledge and where the physician has no contact with the patient and performs no act related to the patient's diagnosis or treatment?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. A physician-patient relationship does not exist under these circumstances. For a physician-patient relationship to be established, the physician must perform some affirmative act with regard to the patient for the patient's benefit. In this case, Dr. Siwy undertook no act of any kind that could be construed as giving rise to a physician-patient relationship with Dixon. Citing Walters v. Rinker, the court affirmed that an act must be performed by the physician, such as examining a tissue sample, for a relationship to develop. Unlike in Walters, Siwy performed no examination, diagnosis, or treatment. The court found this case more analogous to Johnson v. Padilla, where a surgeon who never saw or treated the patient could not be held liable. The fact that Siwy's name was on the consent form due to a hospital practice, without her knowledge or involvement in the specific case, is insufficient to create the necessary relationship for a malpractice claim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a physician-patient relationship is a foundational element for medical malpractice liability and cannot be created by mere administrative formalities or a patient's unilateral belief. The ruling emphasizes the need for an 'affirmative act' by the physician, thereby protecting doctors from liability in situations where they have no knowledge of or involvement in a patient's care. This precedent clarifies that hospital customs, such as placing a supervising physician's name on a consent form, do not automatically establish a legal duty to a patient the physician has never interacted with. The case serves as a clear boundary for malpractice claims, requiring actual physician involvement rather than just a documentary link.
