Warren v. Dinter
926 N.W.2d 370 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician owes a duty of care to an identified third party, even in the absence of a direct physician-patient relationship, when the physician provides medical advice or makes a formal medical decision (such as a hospital admission decision as a gatekeeper), and it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party will rely on that advice or decision and be harmed by a breach of the standard of care.
Facts:
- On August 8, 2014, Susan Warren, age 54, arrived at the Essentia Health clinic in Hibbing, complaining of abdominal pain, fever, chills, and other symptoms.
- Nurse practitioner Sherry Simon ordered tests, which revealed unusually high white blood cell levels and other abnormalities, leading Simon to believe Warren had an infection requiring hospitalization.
- Simon called Fairview Range Medical Center to seek Warren's admission, and her call was randomly assigned to Dr. Richard Dinter, one of the on-call hospitalists at Fairview.
- Simon and Dinter discussed Warren's case for approximately ten minutes, disagreeing on the specific diagnostic information shared and Dinter's precise response regarding admission, but Simon understood Dinter to say Warren did not need hospitalization, suggesting her symptoms were due to diabetes.
- After speaking with Dinter, Simon met with Dr. Jan Baldwin, her collaborating physician, expressing her belief that Warren should still be hospitalized; Baldwin also concurred that diabetes could be responsible for the elevated white blood-cell count.
- Simon then met with Warren, informed her that a hospitalist felt admission was not needed, discussed the diabetes diagnosis, prescribed medication, scheduled a follow-up appointment, and sent Warren home.
- Three days later, Warren's son found her dead in her home; an autopsy concluded the cause of death was sepsis from an untreated staph infection.
Procedural Posture:
- Warren's son sued Dr. Dinter and Fairview Range Medical Center in district court, alleging professional negligence in Warren's care and treatment, including the advice that she did not require hospitalization.
- Dinter and Fairview moved for summary judgment, arguing Dinter owed no duty of care to Warren because no physician-patient relationship was established, and that Dinter's actions were not the proximate cause of death.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the issue of duty, concluding that the interaction was an informal conversation between medical colleagues and did not create a doctor-patient relationship, but denied summary judgment on proximate cause.
- Warren's son appealed the duty ruling to the court of appeals, arguing that a physician-patient relationship was not necessary for Dinter to have a duty.
- A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that no duty existed due to the absence of a physician-patient relationship.
- The Supreme Court of Minnesota granted review.
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 hospitalist owe a duty of care to a patient who has not established a direct physician-patient relationship, when the hospitalist makes a formal medical decision (like denying hospital admission) that is foreseeably relied upon by the patient's treating nurse practitioner and could lead to harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Lillehaug, Justice
Yes, a hospitalist may owe a duty of care in such circumstances. The Supreme Court of Minnesota holds that an express physician-patient relationship is not a necessary prerequisite for a doctor to owe a duty of care in a medical malpractice action under Minnesota law. Instead, the court applies the traditional tort principle of 'foreseeability of harm' to determine if a duty exists, drawing on precedents like Skillings v. Allen and Molloy v. Meier for physicians, and Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe for legal professionals. These cases established that a duty arises when a professional provides advice or makes a decision, and it is reasonably foreseeable that an identified third party will rely on that advice or decision and suffer harm if it is negligently given. The court distinguished Dinter's interaction from an informal 'curbside consultation,' characterizing it instead as a formal medical decision by a hospital 'gatekeeper' regarding admission, made pursuant to hospital protocol. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Warren, it was reasonable to conclude Dinter knew his decision would be relied upon by Simon and Warren, and that a breach of the standard of care could cause serious harm. Therefore, summary judgment on the issue of duty was inappropriate, and the case is remanded for a jury to decide if Dinter breached the standard of care and caused Warren's death.
Dissenting - Anderson, Justice
No, Dr. Dinter did not owe Susan Warren a duty of care under these facts. The dissent argues that it was not reasonably foreseeable that Warren, who never met or spoke to Dinter, would rely on Dinter's decision made during a single phone call with her treating nurse practitioner, Simon. Simon, as Warren's direct caregiver, still had an independent duty to Warren and viable alternative options, such as directing Warren to the emergency room, which she did not pursue. The dissent highlights that Simon sought a 'second opinion' from her collaborating physician, Dr. Baldwin, after speaking with Dinter, indicating that Dinter's advice was neither determinative nor the final answer for Simon. The dissent contends that assigning a duty to Dinter in these circumstances stretches the concept of foreseeability too far, especially given the lack of direct interaction or communication between Dinter and Warren, and Dinter's limited knowledge of Warren's full medical records. Imposing such an expansive duty would deter beneficial informal consultations among professionals, ultimately harming patients by chilling the exchange of expert insights. The precedents cited by the majority, the dissent argues, all involved direct interaction between the professional and the party claiming the duty, which is absent here.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant clarification and expansion of professional duty in medical malpractice law in Minnesota by explicitly de-emphasizing the traditional physician-patient relationship requirement. By focusing on the 'foreseeability of harm' test, the ruling indicates that formal medical decisions made by professionals, even when indirectly impacting a patient through another healthcare provider, can create a legal duty. This decision may increase liability exposure for hospitalists and other consulting physicians involved in admission or care decisions without direct patient contact. It could also prompt hospitals to review and formalize protocols for inter-professional consultations and admission processes to mitigate risks, ensuring that standard of care is clearly defined and adhered to in all stages of patient evaluation, even when the patient is not yet formally admitted.
