Payton v. Weaver
182 Cal. Rptr. 225, 1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1535, 131 Cal. App. 3d 38 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patient's chronic, life-threatening condition requiring continuous, scheduled medical treatment does not constitute an "emergency" under California Health and Safety Code section 1317, which would obligate a hospital to provide ongoing outpatient care. A physician may terminate the physician-patient relationship with a non-compliant and disruptive patient after providing due notice and a reasonable opportunity for the patient to secure alternative care.
Facts:
- Brenda Payton suffers from chronic end-stage renal disease, a permanent condition requiring hemodialysis two to three times a week to survive.
- Dr. John C. Weaver, Jr., and his associated clinic, Biomedical Application of Oakland, Inc. (BMA), had been providing Payton's dialysis treatment since 1975.
- Payton was persistently uncooperative with her treatment, engaging in drug and alcohol abuse, missing appointments, violating dietary restrictions, and being verbally abusive and disruptive at the clinic.
- Payton's disruptive behavior included using profane and vulgar language, screaming, bothering other patients, and pulling out her dialysis needle, causing blood to spew.
- In December 1978, Dr. Weaver notified Payton by letter that he would no longer treat her due to her uncooperative and antisocial behavior.
- Following this notification, Payton applied for admission to the regular outpatient dialysis programs at Alta Bates and Herrick Hospitals and was refused.
- After a prior court order compelling treatment based on Payton's cooperation failed due to her continued non-compliance, Dr. Weaver again notified her on March 3, 1980, that treatment would be terminated and provided her with a list of alternative dialysis providers.
Procedural Posture:
- Brenda Payton first filed a petition for a writ of mandate in a California superior court (trial court) to compel Dr. Weaver to continue her treatment.
- This initial lawsuit was settled by a stipulated order that required Payton to meet certain conditions (e.g., refrain from drug use, keep appointments) to continue receiving care.
- After Payton violated the order, Dr. Weaver again gave notice of termination, leading Payton to file a second petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court, naming Dr. Weaver, BMA, Providence Hospital, Herrick Hospital, and Alta Bates Hospital as respondents.
- The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that Payton had intentionally violated the conditions of the stipulated order and that the respondent hospitals had not violated their duty to provide emergency care.
- The trial court denied Payton's petition for a writ of mandate.
- The trial court stayed the execution of its judgment, ordering Dr. Weaver to continue providing dialysis to Payton pending her appeal.
- Payton (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of her petition to the California Court of Appeal.
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 chronic, life-threatening illness that requires continuous, scheduled treatment constitute an 'emergency' under California Health and Safety Code section 1317, thereby obligating private hospitals to provide ongoing, non-emergency outpatient care?
Opinions:
Majority - Grodin, J.
No. A chronic condition requiring continuous, scheduled care is not an 'emergency' within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 1317. While end-stage renal disease is life-threatening, the statute applies to immediate medical crises, not the ongoing management of a long-term illness. The Legislature did not intend to impose upon any health facility an unqualified obligation to provide continuing, lifetime preventive care for a patient with a chronic condition. Furthermore, Dr. Weaver discharged all professional obligations to Payton by providing sufficient notice of termination and assistance in finding alternative care, which was justified by her knowing, intentional, and disruptive non-compliance that endangered the rights of other patients and imposed on the staff.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between a hospital's statutory duty to provide emergency care and the provision of long-term care for chronic conditions. It establishes that the term 'emergency' under California law refers to an acute, unforeseen medical crisis, not the ongoing need for life-sustaining treatment for a permanent illness. The decision protects healthcare providers from being locked into perpetual treatment relationships with dangerously non-compliant or abusive patients, affirming that a patient's responsibility and cooperation are relevant factors. It also introduces the idea of a 'collective responsibility' among providers for scarce resources, though it concludes that Payton's conduct was extreme enough to justify refusal even on that basis.
