White v. Harris

36 A.3d 203 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

This case arises from the suicide of Ps' fourteen-year-old daughter. The daughter suffered from ongoing mental health problems. On the recommendation of her case manager, she consulted with D through a telepsychiatry research study he was conducting. Ps and the decedent completed pre-assessment documentation, and they participated in a one-time, ninety-minute video-conference session with the psychiatrist. After the session, They completed a questionnaire about their reaction to using telemedicine. The psychiatrist later completed a consultation evaluation that described decedent and the history of her present illness; it also provided the doctor's diagnostic impression of decedent and set forth recommendations for an initial treatment plan. The evaluation stated that consistent with the telepsychiatry research protocol, no follow-up services would be provided, and no medication prescriptions would be directly provided by D. Ps were cautioned that the recommended treatment plan was to be weighed by decedent's treatment team, including her primary care physician, for implementation. D had no further interaction with Ps, decedent, or any member of her treatment team. The daughter committed suicide. She died from the combined effects of ingesting Propoxyphene, opiates, and Citalopram. D had not prescribed or recommended any of these medications. Ps sued D and eight other doctors and medical care providers for malpractice. D claimed he had no duty when she committed suicide because there was no doctor-patient relationship. D also argued that any such relationship was formally terminated in writing following their one-time interaction. The trial court agreed that D's contact was “so minimal as to not establish a physician-patient relationship,” and consequently found that no duty existed at the time of death. In the alternative, it held that if there was a doctor-patient relationship it was terminated following the video conference and, thus, any duty was extinguished. It granted D summary judgment. Ps appealed.