Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A California appellate court held that an interventional cardiologist did not owe a duty of care to a patient about whom he was consulted while she was receiving treatment in another hospital’s ER.

Carol McCurry was taken to the Methodist Hospital ER early one morning. The treating ER physician attempted to have McCurry transferred to another facility and consulted with Inder Singh, an interventional cardiologist at another hospital. Singh offered to consult on McCurry’s case if she were to be transferred to the second facility at the direction of an ICU physician. The ER physician made several requests to have McCurry transferred, but she died before a transfer could be completed.

McCurry’s adult children sued Singh and others, alleging medical negligence and wrongful death. The plaintiffs asserted that Singh had acted negligently in not accepting McCurry’s transfer. Singh moved successfully for summary judgment. The trial court held, as a matter of law, that Singh did not owe a duty of care to McCurry because he had not affirmatively treated her.

Affirming, the appellate court noted that a physician’s duty of care to a patient does not arise until the establishment of a physician-patient relationship. Such a relationship arises out of a contract, express or implied. Here, the court found, Singh’s consultation with the ER physician did not create a physician-patient relationship between him and McCurry. Singh never took charge of McCurry’s care, the court said, adding that he also never had a contract with her and did not examine or treat her.

Concluding that McCurry and Singh did not have a physician-patient relationship, the court held that dismissal was proper.

Citation: McCurry v. Singh, 325 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21 (Ct. App. 2024).