Medical malpractice cases depend on foreseeability.

Byline: Barbara L. Jones

A medical malpractice claim arises from the foreseeability of potential harm to a patient from the doctor's actions, not the formation of a physician-patient relationship, the Supreme Court ruled in Warren v. Dinter, et al.

The decision, written by Justice David Lillehaug, revived a case emanating from the death of a woman who was allegedly denied admittance to a hospital based on a doctor's decision. Chief Justice Lorie Gildea and Justice G. Barry Anderson dissented.

"To be sure, most medical malpractice cases involve an express physician-patient relationship. And a physician-patient relationship is a necessary element of malpractice claims in many states. But we have never held that such a relationship is necessary to maintain a malpractice action under Minnesota law. To the contrary: when there is no express physician-patient relationship, we have turned to the traditional inquiry of whether a tort duty has been created by foreseeability of harm," Lillehaug wrote.

Sam Hanson, representing the appellant, decedent's son, said that the court adopted the right standard of foreseeability and also said hospitalist could not have a relationship with the patient before the patient is admitted, because the hospitalist works within the hospital.

Hanson also noted that the hospitalist was not having an informal conversation with the referring nurse practitioner, but instead was acting in his professional role, wherein he substituted his diagnosis for hers.

The respondent's attorney, William Davidson, said in an e-mail to Minnesota Lawyer, "We sympathize with the Warren family in this difficult case, but respectfully disagree with the majority opinion. We will continue to defend this claim, which the trial court, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and the two dissenting Justices concluded involved too remote a connection to create a duty of care by Dr. Dinter for another provider's patient. As the majority opinion made clear, the merits of the claim remain to be determined, and we believe Fairview and Dr. Dinter will be found to have acted appropriately.

"We also share the concern of the two dissenting justices, as identified by the amici 'friends-of-the court,' American Medical Association, Minnesota Hospital Association, and Minnesota Medical Association, that the result of this decision will be to discourage Minnesota professionals from sharing information and opinions with each other, all to the detriment of good patient...