Jurisdiction:

With a few exceptions, the proper forum for a medical malpractice case is before the Indiana Department of Insurance. In a medical malpractice action where a medical review panel has yet to issue a written opinion, a trial court has limited jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to rule upon issues not preserved for the medical review panel and can be preliminary determined under Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure 56. The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act affords the trial court jurisdiction to preliminarily determine an affirmative defense or issue of law or fact that is not a standard of care issue reserved for written opinion by a medical review panel.

Whether a physician-patient relationship exists is one such question not reserved for a medical review panel and can be determined by the trial court.

Absent a Physician-Patient Relationship A Physician Owes No Duty to a Patient:

The existence of a physician-patient relationship is a critical factor in determining liability in Indiana medical malpractice law. This relationship is a crucial element that determines the scope of a physician’s legal obligations and liability. Any duty a physician owes to a patient is derived from this relationship. Thus, to bring a successful malpractice claim, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that a physician-patient relationship existed. Indiana courts have consistently held in the absence of a physician-patient relationship, there can be no liability on the part of the defendant physician. Giles v. Anonymous Physician I, 13 N.E.3d 504, 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

The Physician-Patient Relationship is a Contractual Relationship:

The duty of a physician to a patient arises from a contractual relationship between the physician and the patient. The relationship must be a consensual one, meaning the patient knowingly seeks the physician’s assistance and the physician knowingly accepts her as a patient. The consent of the physician is necessary to form a physician-patient relationship. Id.

Establishing a Physician-Patient Relationship Requires an Affirmative Act:

Establishing a physician-patient relationship requires more than just an abstract connection; it necessitates some affirmative act or engagement by the physician with the patient. Indiana courts have consistently held there must be some affirmative act by the physician towards the patient to establish this relationship. If a physician does not perform any affirmative act related to the patient, then no physician-patient relationship exists, and consequently, no duty is owed. Id. at 511.

An affirmative act requires acceptance of the patient and participation in their care. It is well established in Indiana that a physician-patient relationship does not exist if the physician neither provides recommendations regarding the patient’s condition or treatment nor participates in the patient’s course of treatment. Where a physician performs no act on behalf of the patient but merely informs a patient he would not take the case then no physician-patient relationship is established. Miller v. Martig, 754 N.E.2d 41, 46 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

Conclusion:

Indiana case law is clear that a physician who does not knowingly consent to a physician-patient relationship or take any affirmative act in the patient’s course of treatment does not establish a physician-patient relationship and therefore owes no duty to that patient.

This article is for information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

Posted in Medical Malpractice

About Janelle Cooper