Medical Malpractice
Further, if a physician consults a colleague but does not actually meet with a patient, they are not liable for the outcomes of the advised treatment (Showalter, 2015). A breach of duty must demonstrate that the physician deviated from current standards of care through their action or inaction. It must also be proven that an injury resulted from that breach of duty. “Even if it is a clear cut case of misdiagnosis, for example, the patient must prove that his condition was worsened by the error before a jury can, as a matter of law, award him pecuniary compensation” (Holder, 1957).
The foundational definition of medical malpractice was established in 1898 in the New York case of Pike v. Honsinger, when a man kicked in the knee by a horse
sued his physician claiming the knee had been set in a negligent manner (Holder, 1975). The jury found that, “the rule in relation to learning and skill does not require the surgeon to possess that extraordinary learning and skill which belong only to a few men of rare endowments, but such as is possessed by the average member of the medical profession in good standing” (Holder, 1975). In other words, the court established that the physician has a responsibility to exercise “reasonable care and diligence” of an average medical professional. The physician is not however, expected to perform at the most elite ability. This case was momentous because it established and defined a standard of care.
In 1938, the Indiana case of Adkins v. Ropp further defined medical malpractice (Holder, 1975). In this case, the defendant was sued because the plaintiff suffered an eye infection after what he claimed was a negligent procedure. The defendant claimed the infection was inevitable and a result of the original injury, not because of any negligent action. The court ruled that, “this implied contract on the part of the physician does not include a promise to effect a cure and negligence cannot be imputed because a cure is not effected” (Holder, 1975). So, if reasonable skill and care was exercised, then the physician could not be held liable for an undesirable outcome. Further, just because there is an undesired outcome, it does not automatically indicate that it was due to an act of negligence.
The foundational definition of medical malpractice was established in 1898 in the New York case of Pike v. Honsinger, when a man kicked in the knee by a horse
sued his physician claiming the knee had been set in a negligent manner (Holder, 1975). The jury found that, “the rule in relation to learning and skill does not require the surgeon to possess that extraordinary learning and skill which belong only to a few men of rare endowments, but such as is possessed by the average member of the medical profession in good standing” (Holder, 1975). In other words, the court established that the physician has a responsibility to exercise “reasonable care and diligence” of an average medical professional. The physician is not however, expected to perform at the most elite ability. This case was momentous because it established and defined a standard of care.
In 1938, the Indiana case of Adkins v. Ropp further defined medical malpractice (Holder, 1975). In this case, the defendant was sued because the plaintiff suffered an eye infection after what he claimed was a negligent procedure. The defendant claimed the infection was inevitable and a result of the original injury, not because of any negligent action. The court ruled that, “this implied contract on the part of the physician does not include a promise to effect a cure and negligence cannot be imputed because a cure is not effected” (Holder, 1975). So, if reasonable skill and care was exercised, then the physician could not be held liable for an undesirable outcome. Further, just because there is an undesired outcome, it does not automatically indicate that it was due to an act of negligence.