Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 327 Or 9 (1998).
Plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently failed to explain the procedures of a MRI and failed to warn of possible claustrophobia causing plaintiff severe emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that the only allegations were for psychological injuries. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the plaintiff stated a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, even though the plaintiff did not allege any physical injury. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds.
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff stated a claim for medical malpractice. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants performed a medical procedure which is conduct creating a duty to exercise that degree of care, knowledge and skill ordinarily used by a provider of that type of medical service. The fact that the harm alleged by plaintiff was psychological rather than physical was not a bar to liability. The Court did not create a general duty to avoid emotional harm that might foreseeably result from a medical professional’s conduct. However, a medical professional may be liable where the standard of care in a particular medical profession recognizes the possibility of adverse psychological reactions or consequences as a medical concern and requires that certain precautions be taken to avoid or minimize the emotional harm.
Spiess v. Johnson, 89 Or App 289, aff’g by an equally divided Court without opinion, 307 Or 242 (1988).
Husband brought an action against a psychiatrist for medical malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress arising out of the psychiatrist’s alleged sexual relationship with the plaintiff’s wife during the course of her treatment. Trial court granted the defendant’s motions to dismiss all claims for failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the defendant’s intentional conduct, i.e. using his sexual relationship with the plaintiff’s wife to inflict severe emotional distress. Plaintiff stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
To state a claim for medical malpractice, the plaintiff must allege a physician-patient relationship. Husband cannot state a claim on his own behalf for alleged negligence against a physician for treating spouse absent an independent physician-patient relationship. The court recognized that psychiatrist-patient relationship is fiducial. However, the plaintiff did not state a claim for breach of fiduciary relationship because there was no physician-patient relationship.
EVIDENCE
DENTAL
MALPRACTICE