Dyer v. Trachtman
470 Mich. 45, 679 N.W.2d 311 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician performing an independent medical examination (IME) has a limited physician-patient relationship with the examinee, giving rise to a professional duty to conduct the examination in a manner not to cause physical harm, and an injury resulting from a breach of this duty sounds in medical malpractice, not ordinary negligence.
Facts:
- Marquis Dyer alleged in an unrelated civil complaint that he injured his left knee and right shoulder during a physical altercation.
- Following his injury, Marquis Dyer underwent surgery to repair a tear in the superior labrum of his right shoulder.
- Marquis Dyer's surgeon placed restrictions on the movement of his right arm and shoulder, including a caution to avoid lifting the arm above forty-five degrees.
- The opposing party in Marquis Dyer's civil action engaged Edward Trachtman, D.O., to perform an independent medical examination (IME) of Marquis Dyer.
- Before the IME, Marquis Dyer informed Dr. Trachtman about his recent shoulder surgery and the movement restrictions.
- During the examination, Dr. Trachtman forcefully rotated Marquis Dyer's right arm and shoulder ninety degrees.
- This forceful rotation detached the labrum from Marquis Dyer's right shoulder, requiring him to undergo new surgery to repair the damage.
Procedural Posture:
- Marquis Dyer filed an original complaint against Dr. Trachtman, alleging medical malpractice and other claims.
- Dr. Trachtman moved for summary disposition, arguing that no physician-patient relationship existed, precluding a medical malpractice claim, and that other counts were merely restatements of malpractice.
- Marquis Dyer moved to amend his complaint to include claims of ordinary negligence.
- The trial court granted Dr. Trachtman's motion for summary disposition, ruling that no physician-patient relationship was created and thus a medical malpractice claim could not be brought, and denied Marquis Dyer's motion to amend, concluding that any negligence claim against the physician would be medical malpractice requiring a physician-patient relationship.
- Marquis Dyer appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals agreed that the absence of a physician-patient relationship was fatal to the malpractice claim but determined that Marquis Dyer could still maintain a claim in ordinary negligence and remanded the case to allow amendment of the complaint.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the nature of liability for an IME physician.
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 who negligently causes physical harm to an examinee during an independent medical examination (IME) owe a limited professional duty giving rise to a cause of action in medical malpractice, even in the absence of a traditional physician-patient relationship, or does such an injury sound only in ordinary negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Marilyn Kelly
Yes, a physician who negligently causes physical harm during an independent medical examination (IME) has a limited professional duty to the examinee, giving rise to a claim sounding in medical malpractice. The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that an IME physician has a limited physician-patient relationship with the examinee, imposing a duty to perform the examination in a manner not to cause physical harm. This relationship is considered 'limited' because it does not entail the traditional physician's responsibilities of diagnosis or treatment, nor does it create liability for the physician’s conclusions or reports. However, the examinee still places their physical person in the hands of a professional, expecting reasonable care. The court differentiated between medical malpractice and ordinary negligence by determining whether the alleged facts 'raise questions involving medical judgment' or are 'within the common knowledge and experience of the jury.' Dr. Trachtman's actions, involving the medical decision to fully rotate Marquis Dyer's arm despite stated restrictions, squarely involved professional medical judgment, making the claim one of medical malpractice. This approach avoids creating an artificial distinction between IME physicians and treating physicians for similar conduct and allows IME physicians access to statutory protections afforded to other medical professionals. The court specifically overruled previous inconsistent case law, such as Rogers v Horvath and its progeny.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard of care and classification of claims against physicians conducting independent medical examinations in Michigan. By establishing a 'limited physician-patient relationship,' the court ensures that IME physicians are held to a professional standard for direct physical harm caused during an examination, rather than a lower ordinary negligence standard. This decision provides greater legal consistency for actions involving medical judgment and extends statutory protections for medical professionals to IME physicians. Future cases will likely rely on this framework to distinguish between professional negligence and common mistakes by physicians acting in assessment roles, influencing litigation strategy and the scope of duties recognized in non-treatment medical contexts.
