Hoover v. Williamson, 8
Decision Date | 13 October 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 8,8 |
Citation | 236 Md. 250,203 A.2d 861,10 A.L.R.3d 1064 |
Parties | , 10 A.L.R.3d 1064 Willard HOOVER v. C. Vernon WILLIAMSON. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Harold Buchman, Baltimore, for appellant.
Alva P. Weaver, III, and Frank J. Vecella, Baltimore (Robert E. Coughlan, Jr., Lord, Whip, Coughlan & Green, G. C. A. Anderson, Anderson, Coe & King and Preston A. Pairo, Jr., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before HENDERSON, C. J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
Each year X-ray examinations of the chests of certain employees of General Electric Company are required by the company under the direction and supervision of Dr. C. Vernon Williamson, a physician who is paid for his services by the company. One of those who was so examined was the appellant, Willard Hoover, who had worked for the company for many years in a job which subjected him to exposure to silica dust.
Alleging that he has silicosis in serious and permanent form, which causes him pain and disability and results in medical expenses and loss of time from work, Hoover sued General Electric and Dr. Williamson in the Superior Court of Baltimore City for causing his condition. The count against General Electric which is not before us for consideration in this appeal was under an option in the Workmen's Compensation law, Code (1957), Art. 101, Sec. 44 (). Judge Byrnes permitted amendment to the count of the declaration against Dr. Williamson and then sustained a demurrer to the amended count, as he had to the original count. Hoover appealed.
The amended count against Dr. Williamson, as particularized, alleges that Hoover has been exposed to silica dust for the seventeen years of his employment at General Electric, that four or five years prior to November 1, 1961, Dr. Williamson, 'a physician retained by said company,' in the course of an annual X-ray examination of his chest, 'purported to advise plaintiff concerning his condition,' that is, that he had 'a little infection on the lungs'--and that Dr. Williamson 'made representations to him, acting as plaintiff's physician, and also referred him to another consultant.' It is then alleged that the X-ray examination 'did, in fact, clearly reveal' to Dr. Williamson that Hoover had silicosis and that Dr. Williamson '* * * wilfully and deliberately concealed such knowledge from the plaintiff, affirmatively misrepresented to him the nature of his condition and concealed from him the recommendations * * *' of the consultant, with the result that his lung condition has become a serious and permanent disease which was caused by Dr. Williamson's breach of professional duty to Hoover as his physician and the wilful concealment of such condition.
The demurrer to the amended declaration says it lacks facts showing a physician-patient relationship; in the absence of such a relationship Dr. Williamson owed Hoover no duty; the referral of Hoover to a consultant did not, in itself, create a physician-patient relationship; Dr. Williamson was retained by the company and not by Hoover and any duty the doctor owed was to the company and not to Hoover and, finally, that the declaration showed on its face that Hoover knew or should have known of his condition more than three years prior to the filing of suit and is barred by limitations.
The appellee is right in his contention that ordinarily recovery for malpractice or negligence against a doctor is allowed only where there is a relationship of doctor and patient as a result of a contract, express or implied, that the doctor will treat the patient with proper professional skill and the patient will pay for such treatment, and there has been a breach of professional duty to the patient. Thus, it has been held that there is not a doctor-patient relationship between: (a) a prospective or actual insured and the physician who examines him for the insurance company; or (b) a prospective or actual employee and the doctor who examines him for the employer. 1
There is, however, a broader, a more fundamental rule of long standing under which a physician may incur a tort obligation which is nonconsensual and independent of contract. This is the general rule that one who assumes to act even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all. Restatement, Torts, Sec. 325, says the law is that one who gratuitously undertakes to render services which he should recognize as necessary to another's bodily safety, and leads the other in reasonable reliance on the services to refrain from taking other protective steps, or to enter on a dangerous course of conduct, '* * * is subject to liability to the other for bodily harm resulting from the actor's failure to exercise reasonable care to carry out his undertaking.' See also 2 Harper and James, The Law of Torts, Sec. 18.6.
In Edwards v. Lamb, 69 N.H. 599, 45 A. 480, 50 L.R.A. 160, the wife of a patient was advised by the doctor that there was no danger in her helping him dress her husband's infected wound. She did so and became infected with septic poisoning and sued the doctor. In holding that a demurrer was properly overruled, the Court said:
See also Harriott v. Plimpton, 166 Mass. 585, 44 N.E. 992; Beadling v. Sirotta, 41 N.J. 555, 197 A.2d 857, 860 (); DuBois v. Decker, 130 N.Y. 325, 29 N.E. 313, 14 L.R.A. 429; Johnson v. Borland, 317 Mich. 225, 26 N.W.2d 755; Louisell & Williams, Trial of Medical Malpractice Cases, p. 191 (1960, Supp.1963); 41 Am.Jur. Physicians & Surgeons Sec. 71, p. 193; 70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons §§ 46 and 52, pp. 954 and 975; 2 Intramural L.Rev. 158. Cf. Merchants National Bank v. Morriss (1st Cir.), 269 F.2d 363; Andrews v. Davis, 128 Me. 464, 148 A. 684; Davis v. Rodman, 147 Ark. 385, 227 S.W. 612, 13 A.L.R. 1459; Jones v. Stanko, 118 Ohio St. 147, 160 N.E. 456.
It may be assumed that if Dr. Williamson had done no more than...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beaman v. Helton
...majority opinion, however, accords with the earlier decisions of this Court. The plaintiff cites two Maryland cases, Hoover v. Williamson, 236 Md. 250, 203 A.2d 861 (1964) and Betesh v. United States, 400 F.Supp. 238 (D.D.C.1974), and one case from Ohio, Meinze v. Holmes, 40 Ohio App.3d 143......
-
Schaefer v. Miller, 112
...relationship be in existence at the time the alleged act occurred. Id. The court relied in part upon Hoover v. Williamson, 236 Md. 250, 253, 203 A.2d 861 (1964), where we "that ordinarily recovery for malpractice or negligence against a doctor is allowed only where there is a relationship o......
-
Sterling v. Johns Hopkins Hospital
...of professional duty to the patient." Dingle v. Belin, 358 Md. 354, 367, 749 A.2d 157, 164 (2000) (quoting Hoover v. Williamson, 236 Md. 250, 253-254, 203 A.2d 861, 862 (1964)). II. Maryland has recognized that the existence of a duty constitutes a legal determination. The Court of Appeals ......
-
Haughie v. Wexford Health Sources
...A.2d at 611; see Eid v. Duke, 373 Md. 2, 16, 816 A.2d 844, 852 (2003); Dingle, 358 Md. at 367, 749 A.2d at 164; Hoover v. Williamson, 236 Md. 250, 253, 203 A.2d 861, 863 (1964). Such a relationship "may be established by contract, express or implied, although creation of the relationship do......