Oklahoma: Consulting physician not liable for malpractice
by Reni Gertner, MPH
March 23, 2010
A physician-patient relationship is an indispensable element of a medical malpractice claim and therefore a doctor who was consulted about a plaintiff’s pregnancy can’t be sued, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled.
The plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice claim against a non-treating physician who had a conversation with the treating physician concerning the plaintiff’s history and complications.
The plaintiffs claimed that based on the non-treating physician’s advice, the treating physician caused their daughter to be delivered prematurely, resulting in serious injuries.
The non-treating physician said that although he gave the treating physician his “informal” opinion, he was never asked to co-manage the mother’s case.
The court held that the defendant could not be held liable because no physician-patient relationship existed.
“[The defendant] did not render medical advice to the plaintiffs; did not provide services to the treating physician on behalf of [the mother or baby]; did not receive a referral of [the mother or baby] for treatment or consultation; was not employed by [the treating physician] and had not been asked or contracted … to provide medical treatment to [the mother or daughter]; and had not reviewed any work, conducted any laboratory tests, reviewed any test reports, prepared any reports, or billed the plaintiffs. …
“Further, none of the plaintiffs agreed that [the defendant] could treat [the mother or baby]. Even though [the treating physician] chose to rely on [the defendant’s] opinion, [the treating physician] was free to exercise his independent judgment,” the court said.
It concluded: “The facts before us fail to show that [the defendant] agreed to treat the plaintiffs or undertook treatment of any of the plaintiffs. Thus, there was not the physician-patient relationship necessary for a medical malpractice action.”
The court cited similar rulings from other jurisdictions.
Oklahoma Supreme Court. Jennings v. Badgett, No. 105745. Feb. 9, 2010.


![[Print]](http://mamedicallaw.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://mamedicallaw.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/email_2.png)
![[del.icio.us]](http://mamedicallaw.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://mamedicallaw.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://mamedicallaw.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Furl]](http://mamedicallaw.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/furl.png)
![[Reddit]](http://mamedicallaw.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://mamedicallaw.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/stumbleupon.png)


Comments
Got something to say?