Miller v. Martig
2001 WL 966207, 754 NE2d 41 (2001)
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, does not form if a physician performs no affirmative act of treatment or diagnosis and explicitly refuses to accept the patient's case, even if the physician is on-call and engages in a preliminary consultation.
Facts:
- Naney Miller was admitted to Henry County Memorial Hospital for inducement of labor under the care of Dr. Griffith.
- Dr. John Martig was the hospital's 'on-call' anesthesiologist, with a contractual duty to be available for the hospital's patients.
- Dr. Griffith ordered a consultation with Dr. Martig for Naney regarding pain control.
- During the consultation, Dr. Martig told Naney that he lacked proper training to administer epidurals, 'could not accept her case,' and that she needed to consult further with Dr. Griffith.
- Dr. Martig then went to the physician's lounge within the hospital to sleep, and his beeper was malfunctioning.
- Later, Naney's condition became an obstetrical emergency requiring an immediate Cesarean section.
- A nurse attempted to page Dr. Martig but could not locate him in time.
- Dr. Griffith and a resident performed the C-section on Naney without an anesthetic.
Procedural Posture:
- The Millers filed a proposed complaint against Dr. Martig with the Indiana Department of Insurance, alleging medical negligence.
- Before a medical review panel issued an opinion, Dr. Martig moved for summary judgment in the trial court, seeking a preliminary determination of law on the issue of duty.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Martig, ruling that no physician-patient relationship ever existed as a matter of law.
- The Millers (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with Dr. Martig as the appellee.
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 form when an on-call physician consults with a patient but explicitly informs the patient that he cannot accept the case and will not provide treatment?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, J.
No, a physician-patient relationship does not form under these circumstances. To establish a physician-patient relationship, which is a prerequisite for a medical malpractice claim, the physician must perform some affirmative act of care or diagnosis and consent to the relationship. Here, Dr. Martig did not make any recommendations, did not participate in any course of treatment, and, most importantly, explicitly informed Naney that he would not take her case. This express refusal negates any implication that he consented to forming a relationship, and without such a relationship, there can be no duty owed to the patient and thus no liability for malpractice. The court also held that a plaintiff cannot create a genuine issue of material fact to survive summary judgment by offering contradictory, self-serving testimony that places their own credibility at issue.
Dissenting - Riley, J.
Yes, a physician-patient relationship was established, and the case should not have been dismissed. The relationship was formed in two ways: first, by Dr. Martig's on-call contract with the hospital, which created an obligation to treat the hospital's patients; and second, by his affirmative act of conducting a consultation with Naney at her primary doctor's request. By being the designated on-call anesthesiologist, Dr. Martig created a reasonable expectation and a 'false sense of security' that a qualified specialist was available. Because a physician-patient relationship existed as a matter of law, the question of whether Dr. Martig breached the standard of care was a matter of fact that should have been decided by a Medical Review Panel, not dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that a physician-patient relationship is consensual and requires an affirmative act of acceptance by the physician. It clarifies that an on-call status and a preliminary consultation do not automatically create a legal duty, especially when the physician explicitly refuses to provide care. The ruling protects physicians from incurring liability in cases they feel unqualified for and clearly decline, but it also raises questions about the scope of a hospital's duty to ensure its on-call staff provides care. The dissent highlights a competing view that on-call contracts create a non-delegable duty to patients, a theory the majority rejected in favor of a more direct, consent-based model of relationship formation.
