Rogers v. Horvath, Docket No. 21856

Citation65 Mich.App. 644,237 N.W.2d 595
Decision Date14 November 1975
Docket NumberDocket No. 21856
PartiesHelen M. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. James J. HORVATH, M.D., Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant. 65 Mich.App. 644, 237 N.W.2d 595
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan (US)

[65 MICHAPP 645] Harry D. Hirsch, Jr., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

Kitch, Suhrheinrich & Getto by Ronald F. DeNardis, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and BRONSON and T. M. BURNS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff received workmen's compensation benefits from her employer, General Motors Corporation, for a shoulder injury. When the benefits were terminated, plaintiff filed a claim for continuation with the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation. Pursuant to its rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act, General Motors had plaintiff examined by the defendant, a licensed physician who is board certified in the specialty of orthopedics.

Subsequent to the examination, defendant reported to General Motors and testified at the [65 MICHAPP 646] workmen's compensation hearing that there was nothing wrong with the plaintiff and that she was a malingerer. The referee decided the plaintiff was not disabled.

In this suit, plaintiff alleges malpractice in defendant's examination of plaintiff, and fraud and libel in the report to General Motors and in defendant's testimony at the hearing. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary and/or accelerated judgment as to all counts except the charge of libel in the report to General Motors.

The principal question raised by this appeal is whether a professional physician-patient relationship is a legal prerequisite to basing a cause of action in professional malpractice against a physician. Plaintiff asserts that defendant had a duty to examine her in accordance with the standard of practice of physicians who hold themselves out as orthopedic specialists, and she alleges that he wilfully or negligently failed in his duty because he did not conduct an examination in accordance with such standard of practice, which resulted in a failure to properly diagnose plaintiff's condition. Plaintiff claims that defendant's report of her condition was known or should have been known to be false and that it resulted in injury to her--namely, loss of benefits.

The examination of plaintiff was performed on behalf of her employer in preparation for testifying before the workmen's compensation referee, and it was not performed for the plaintiff's benefit to diagnose or treat an ailment. The trial court was correct in ruling that plaintiff had no cause of action for malpractice.

The term 'malpractice' denotes a breach of the duty owed by one in rendering professional services[65 MICHAPP 647] to a person who has contracted for such services; in physician-malpractice cases, the duty owed by the physician arises from the physician-patient relationship. 1 No such relationship existed in the case at bar. Defendant was employed by General Motors to examine one of its employees in preparation for a workmen's compensation hearing. Plaintiff did not employ the defendant, nor did she seek or receive medical advice or treatment. Under such circumstances, the defendant did not owe plaintiff any duty arising from a physician-patient relationship. This is not to say that a physician who examines a person for reasons other than diagnosis or treatment and for the benefit of some one other than the examine owes no duty of due care to that person. Rather, we hold that the physician in such a case does not owe such a duty of care as will subject him to liability for malpractice. 2

Plaintiff next assigns error to the trial court's granting accelerated or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Poly-Flex Const., Inc. v. Neyer, Tiseo & Hindo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 6 Octubre 2008
    ...one in rendering professional services to a person who has contracted for such services.") (citing, inter alia, Rogers v. Horvath, 65 Mich.App. 644, 237 N.W.2d 595, 597 (1975)), overruled o.g. by Dyer, 470 Mich. 45, 679 N.W.2d 311 (citing, inter alia, Kambas v. St. Joseph's Mercy Hosp., 389......
  • Law Offices of Lawrence J. Stockler, P.C. v. Rose
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 24 Febrero 1989
    ...of duty owed by one in rendering professional services to a person who has contracted for such services. Rogers v. Horvath, 65 Mich.App. 644, 646-647, 237 N.W.2d 595 (1975), lv. den. 396 Mich. 845 (1976), and see Becker v. Meyer Rexall Drug Co., 141 Mich.App. 481, 484-485, 367 N.W.2d 424 (1......
  • Mero v. Sadoff
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 31 Enero 1995
    ...(Id., 422 N.Y.S.2d at pp. 342-343.) In reaching this conclusion, the court cited Keene. (Ibid.) The court also cited Rogers v. Horvath (1975) 65 Mich.App. 644 , another case relied upon by defendant here. Rogers, however, involved a plaintiff whose action was based on malpractice in the exa......
  • Webb v. T.D.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 13 Noviembre 1997
    ...v. Wiggins (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 308, 138 Cal.Rptr. 3; Peace v. Weisman (1988), 186 Ga.App. 697, 368 S.E.2d 319; Rogers v. Horvath (1975), 65 Mich.App. 644, 237 N.W.2d 595; Henkemeyer v. Boxall (Minn.Ct.App.1991), 465 N.W.2d 437; LoDico v. Caputi (1987) 129 A.D.2d 361, 517 N.Y.S.2d 640; Prom......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT