Ricks v. Budge
1937 Utah LEXIS 10, 64 P. 2d 208, 91 Utah 307 (1937)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician who undertakes to treat a patient has a duty to continue providing care as long as it is needed and cannot withdraw from the case without giving the patient reasonable notice and an opportunity to secure alternative medical attention.
Facts:
- On March 8, 1935, Mr. Ricks injured the middle finger of his right hand on a barbed wire, leading to a severe infection.
- On March 11, Ricks sought treatment from Dr. S. M. Budge at the Budge Clinic, was admitted to the hospital, and had his finger surgically incised and drained.
- On March 15, against Dr. Budge's advice, Ricks left the hospital. Dr. Budge instructed Ricks to continue treatment at home and to return immediately if the finger showed any signs of getting worse.
- On March 17, Ricks' hand worsened, and he called Dr. Budge, who instructed him to come to his office.
- At the office, both Dr. S. M. Budge and Dr. D. C. Budge examined the hand, determined immediate surgery was necessary, and sent Ricks back to the hospital for the procedure.
- Shortly after Ricks was admitted to his hospital room, Dr. S. M. Budge arrived and informed Ricks he would not be treated until a pre-existing, unrelated account was paid.
- Ricks then left the hospital, walked several blocks in the rain to another hospital, and received emergency surgical treatment from another doctor.
- Despite the subsequent treatment, Ricks' finger ultimately had to be amputated.
Procedural Posture:
- Ricks (plaintiff) filed a malpractice action against Dr. Budge and his partners (defendants) in the District Court of Cache County, Utah (a trial court).
- The complaint alleged two causes of action: 1) negligent treatment and 2) abandonment.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence at trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on both causes of action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion, ruling in their favor and dismissing the case.
- Ricks (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of the directed verdict to the Supreme Court of Utah.
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 has an established physician-patient relationship commit actionable malpractice by abandoning a patient at a critical stage of treatment, due to an unrelated unpaid bill, without giving the patient reasonable notice to procure other medical care?
Opinions:
Majority - Hanson, J.
Yes. A physician who undertakes a case is under a duty to continue attention so long as the case requires it, and can only withdraw after giving the patient reasonable notice to secure other medical attention. The evidence indicates the physician-patient relationship between Ricks and Dr. Budge had not terminated. Dr. Budge explicitly instructed Ricks to return if his condition worsened, and the relationship was reaffirmed when the doctors examined Ricks on March 17 and sent him to the hospital for immediate surgery. Refusing to provide necessary surgical care at that critical moment, conditioned on the payment of an old debt, constituted an abandonment of the patient and a breach of the physician's duty. The jury should be allowed to determine whether this abandonment caused Ricks damages, including increased physical and mental suffering.
Dissenting - Folland, J.
No. The physician did not commit malpractice because the physician-patient relationship was terminated by the patient, and no new contract for treatment was formed. Ricks terminated the relationship on March 15 when he left the hospital against medical advice. When he returned on March 17, no new contract was formed, as Dr. Budge was within his rights to negotiate terms of payment before undertaking a new operation. Dr. Budge's refusal to proceed was not an abandonment, but a refusal to enter into a new contract, and Ricks was able to secure alternative care shortly thereafter without evidence of damage resulting from the delay.
Concurring - Wolfe, J.
Yes. A physician may be liable for abandonment if, after reassuming the duty of care, they withdraw with peremptory notice under circumstances that endanger the patient. While the original relationship terminated on March 15, a jury could find that the defendants reassumed the physician-patient relationship on March 17 when they examined Ricks and sent him to their hospital for an operation. If the jury finds the relationship was reassumed, it must then determine whether the doctors' abrupt refusal to treat constituted an abandonment without sufficient notice, thereby creating a greater hazard for the patient. The question of whether the delay caused prolonged suffering or worsened his outcome is a question for the jury.
Analysis:
This case establishes the legal principle that a physician's professional duty to a patient in need of critical care can supersede financial considerations. It reinforces the rule against patient abandonment, clarifying that the physician-patient relationship imposes a continuous duty of care that cannot be unilaterally terminated by the physician without reasonable notice. The decision creates a strong precedent that a doctor's refusal to treat an existing patient in an emergency situation based on an unrelated debt constitutes a tortious abandonment, for which the patient may recover damages for suffering and any worsening of their condition.
