Faulk v. Northwest Radiologists, P.C.
751 N.E.2d 233, 2001 WL 779626 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patient has a duty to exercise reasonable care for their own protection, which includes following a physician's reasonable instructions for follow-up care. A patient's failure to follow such instructions may constitute contributory negligence, serving as a complete bar to recovery in a medical malpractice action if that failure is a proximate cause of the injury.
Facts:
- In February 1991, Clifford N. Faulk, Sr., was diagnosed with a cancerous mass in his neck and was referred to Dr. B. Richard Goldburg.
- In March 1991, Dr. Goldburg performed biopsies, which confirmed cancer in the neck but not in Faulk's tongue.
- In April 1991, Dr. Goldburg performed a radical neck dissection on Faulk and instructed him on a multi-year schedule of frequent follow-up appointments, starting with monthly visits.
- Dr. Goldburg scheduled a follow-up for June 13, 1991, which Faulk missed. Faulk did not see or attempt to see Dr. Goldburg again for nearly two years.
- Between 1991 and 1993, Faulk received radiation therapy and follow-up care from Northwest Radiologists, P.C., whose oncologists repeatedly advised him to also see Dr. Goldburg for check-ups.
- In May 1993, after Faulk complained of headaches, a CT scan revealed a new mass in his tongue.
- In June 1993, Dr. Goldburg confirmed the tongue mass was cancerous, leading to surgery where Faulk's tongue and vocal cords were removed.
Procedural Posture:
- Clifford N. Faulk, Sr. filed a proposed complaint for medical malpractice with the Indiana Department of Insurance.
- A medical review panel concluded that the evidence did not establish that Dr. Goldburg or Northwest had failed to meet the appropriate standard of care.
- Faulk filed a lawsuit against Dr. Goldburg and Northwest in an Indiana trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of the evidence, Faulk moved for judgment on the evidence on the defendants' defenses of contributory negligence, which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned verdicts in favor of Dr. Goldburg and Northwest.
- Faulk, as appellant, appealed the judgment 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 patient's failure to follow a physician's instructions for follow-up appointments constitute contributory negligence sufficient to bar recovery in a medical malpractice claim, where the patient alleges negligence both before and during the period of non-compliance?
Opinions:
Majority - Sharpnack, C.J.
Yes. A patient's failure to follow a physician's reasonable instructions for follow-up care can constitute contributory negligence sufficient to bar recovery. The court found there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Faulk acted unreasonably by ignoring explicit and repeated instructions from both Dr. Goldburg and Northwest's oncologists to maintain his follow-up appointments. The court rejected Faulk's argument that his non-compliance was not a proximate cause of his injury, citing expert testimony that the second tumor developed after he stopped seeing Dr. Goldburg and that timely follow-ups would have likely led to an earlier diagnosis. Because Faulk alleged ongoing negligence by the defendants during the same two-year period he was non-compliant, his own negligence was simultaneous with the defendants' alleged malpractice, allowing it to be considered a contributing cause of the harm.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle of contributory negligence in the medical malpractice context, emphasizing that patient care is a shared responsibility. The ruling establishes that a patient's non-compliance with a prescribed follow-up schedule can be a complete defense for a physician, especially when the patient's negligence is concurrent with the physician's alleged ongoing negligence. This precedent places a significant burden on plaintiffs to demonstrate their own diligence in following treatment plans to succeed in malpractice claims. It signals to lower courts that juries should be allowed to weigh a patient's conduct, and a failure to follow reasonable medical advice can sever the causal link to the physician's actions, thereby barring recovery.
