- Joined
- May 30, 2005
- Messages
- 21,253
- Reaction score
- 12,367
Legal & Regulatory
Physician May Be Held Liable for Car Accident for Failing to Instruct Patient Not to Drive
A physician who had treated an individual involved in a head-on automobile collision may be held liable for not doing more to prevent his patient from driving following an Indiana Supreme Courts ruling that reversed summary judgment in his favor. The Indiana Supreme Court held that several questions of material fact precluded making a summary judgment on the case, including the need to determine exactly when the statute of limitations began to run. At the scene of the accident, the physicians patient allegedly said that she was not supposed to drive because of her medical condition. It came to light that the county prosecutor was in possession of an undated letter written to him by the physician, which said that his patient had several medical conditions that, combined with medications she had been prescribed, may have contributed to the accident. In reversing summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the supreme court said that the date the statute of limitations began to run on the injured partys claim could not be ascertained based on the available evidence and that more evidence was needed to establish a causal relationship between the physicians treatment of the patient and the collision. The physician originally sought summary judgment on the basis that the claim was barred by the medical malpractice statute of limitations, and the court initially held that this limitations period applied because the claim had been filed in compliance with the states medical malpractice act. The physician argued that the limitations period began to run on November 21, 2006, the last time he saw the patient, while the injured party argued that the period began to run on November 27, 2006, the date of the collision. The court noted a third possible datewhen the physician wrote to the county prosecuting attorneys office. The physician argued that there was no evidence indicating that his failure to warn the patient not to drive could have been a proximate cause of the accident, because the patient may have ignored his advice and because the patients choice to drive was not a superseding cause of the accident. The court said that the physicians contentions rested on uncertain facts and inferences that could not be determined in summary judgment, thus reversing the summary judgment in favor of the physician.
Physician May Be Held Liable for Car Accident for Failing to Instruct Patient Not to Drive
A physician who had treated an individual involved in a head-on automobile collision may be held liable for not doing more to prevent his patient from driving following an Indiana Supreme Courts ruling that reversed summary judgment in his favor. The Indiana Supreme Court held that several questions of material fact precluded making a summary judgment on the case, including the need to determine exactly when the statute of limitations began to run. At the scene of the accident, the physicians patient allegedly said that she was not supposed to drive because of her medical condition. It came to light that the county prosecutor was in possession of an undated letter written to him by the physician, which said that his patient had several medical conditions that, combined with medications she had been prescribed, may have contributed to the accident. In reversing summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the supreme court said that the date the statute of limitations began to run on the injured partys claim could not be ascertained based on the available evidence and that more evidence was needed to establish a causal relationship between the physicians treatment of the patient and the collision. The physician originally sought summary judgment on the basis that the claim was barred by the medical malpractice statute of limitations, and the court initially held that this limitations period applied because the claim had been filed in compliance with the states medical malpractice act. The physician argued that the limitations period began to run on November 21, 2006, the last time he saw the patient, while the injured party argued that the period began to run on November 27, 2006, the date of the collision. The court noted a third possible datewhen the physician wrote to the county prosecuting attorneys office. The physician argued that there was no evidence indicating that his failure to warn the patient not to drive could have been a proximate cause of the accident, because the patient may have ignored his advice and because the patients choice to drive was not a superseding cause of the accident. The court said that the physicians contentions rested on uncertain facts and inferences that could not be determined in summary judgment, thus reversing the summary judgment in favor of the physician.
