Malpractice liability for informal consultations

Family Medicine

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 476-481

  Olick, Robert S ^a   Bergus, George R ^b  

^a SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Center for Bioethics and Humanities ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSULTATION; DATA BASE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL LIABILITY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PATIENT RIGHT; REVIEW;

HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MALPRACTICE; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

EID: 0038601810     PISSN: 07423225     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. E-mail Consultation Service. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa.
2. Smith R. What clinical information do doctors need? BMJ 1996;313: 1062-8.
3. Hang JD. Physicians' preferences for information sources: a metaanalytic study. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1997;85:223-32.
4. Gruppen LD, Wolf FM, Van Voorhees CV, Stross JK. Information-seeking strategies and differences among primary care physicians. Mobious 1987;XX:18-26.
5. Ely JW, Burch RJ, Vinson DC. The information needs of family physicians: case-specific clinical questions. J Fam Pract 1992;25:265-9.
6. Gorman PN, Ash J, Wykoff L. Can primary care physicians' questions be answered using the medical journal literature? Bull Med Libr Assoc 1994;82:140-6.
7. Dee C, Blazek R. Information needs of the rural physician: a descriptive study. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1993;81:259-64.
8. Manian FA, Janssen DA. Curbside consultations. A closer look at a common practice. JAMA 1996;275:145-6.
9. Golub RM. Curbside consultations and the viaduct effect. JAMA 1998; 280:929-30.
10. Manian FA, McKinsey DS. A prospective study of 2,092 "curbside" questions asked of two infectious disease consultants in private practice in the Midwest. Clin Infect Dis 1996;22:303-7.
11. Magnussen CR. Infectious disease curbside consultations at a community hospital. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice 1992;6:391-4.
12. Kuo D, Gifford DR, Stein MD. Curbside consultation practices and attitudes among primary care physicians and medical subspecialists. JAMA 1998;280:905-9.
13. Bergus GR, Sinift SD, Randall CS, Rosenthal DM. Use of an e-mail curbside consultation service by family physicians. J Fam Pract 1998; 47:357-60.
14. Keating NL, Zaslavsky AM, Ayanian JZ. Physicians' experiences and beliefs regarding informal consultation. JAMA 1998;280:900-4.
15. Spielberg AR. On-line without a net: physician-patient communication by electronic mail. Am J Law Med 1999;25:267-95.
16. Granade PF. Medical malpractice issues related to the use of telemedicine: an analysis of the ways in which telecommunications affects the principles of medical malpractice. North Dakota Law Review 1997;73:65-91.
17. Furrow BR, Greaney TL, Johnson SH, Jost TS, Schwartz RL. Health law. Minneapolis: West Publishing Company, 1995:354-7.
18. Corbet v McKinney, 980 SW2d 166 (Mo Ct App, 1998).
19. Prooth v Walsh, 432 NYS 2d 663.
20. NBD v Barry, 223 Mich App 370, 566 NW2d 47.
21. Cogswell v Chapman, 249 AD2d 865, 672 NYS2d 460 (1998).
22. Bovara v St Francis Hosp, 298 III App 3d 1025, 700 NE2d 143 (1998).
23. 186 Mich App 300, 463 NW2d 265 (Ct App, 1990).
24. Oliver v Brock, 342 So2d 1 (S Ct Ala, 1976).
25. Roberts v Hunter, 310 SC 364, 426 SE2d 797 (1992).
26. Lopez, v Aziz, 8852 SW 2d 303 (Ct App Tex, 1993).
27. Ingber v Kandler, 128 AD2d 591, 513 NYS2d 11 (App Div, 1987).
28. Flynn v Bausch, 238 Neb 61, 469 NW2d 125 (1991).
29. Sullenger v Setco Northwest, 74 Or App 345, 702 P2d 1139 (Or Ct App, 1985).
30. Sawh v Schoen, 215 AD2d 291, 627 NYS2d 7 (App Div 1st Dept, 1995).
31. Rainer v Grossman, 31 CalApp3d 539, 107 Cal Rptr 469 (CtApp 1973).
32. Reynolds v Decatur Memorial Hosp, 277 Ill App 3d 80, 660 NE2d 235 (1996).
33. Gilinsky v Indelicato, 894 F Supp 86 (EDNY 1995).
34. Sibley v Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ, 490 So2d 307 (CtAppLa 1986).
35. Schendel v Hennepin Cty Med Ctr, 484 NW2d 803 (CtAppMinn 1992).
36. Walter v Rinker, 520 NE2d 468 (CtAppInd, 1988).
37. Peterson v St Cloud Hosp, 460 NW2d 635 (MinnApp, 1990).
38. Dougherty v Gifford, 826 SW2d 668 (CtAppTex, 1992).
39. Hiser v Randolph, 126 Ariz 608, 617 P2d 774 (ArizApp, 1980).
40. Hand v Tavera, 864 SW2d 678 (CtAppTex, 1993).
41. Wheeler v Yettie Kersting Mem Hosp, 866 SW2d 32 (CtAppTex, 1993).
42. McKinney v Schlatter, 118 Ohio App3d 328, 692 NE2d 1045 (1997), aff'd, 1999 WL 17800.
43. St John v Pope, 38 TexSupJ 723, 901 SW2d 420 (SCtTex, 1994).
44. Fought v Solce, 821 SW2d 218 (TexApp, 1991).
45. Rivera v Prince George's County Health Dept, 102 MdApp 456, 649 A2d 1212 (CtSpApp, 1994).
46. Miller v Martig, 754 NE2d 41 (CtApplnd, 2001).
47. Granade PF, Sander JH. Implementing telemedicine nationwide: analyzing the legal issues. Defense Counsel Journal 1996;63:67-73.
48. Rigelhaupt JL. What constitutes physician-patient relationship for malpractice purposes. American Law Reports 1998;7(4):132-60.
49. Fox BC, Siegel ML, Weinstein RA. "Curbside" consultation and informal communication in medical practice: a medicolegal perspective. Clin Infect Dis 1996;23:616-22.
50. Jurevic AM. When technology and health care collide: issues with electronic records and electronic mail. UMKC Law Review 1998;66:809-36.
51. Cartmill M, White BD. Telephone advice for neurosurgical referrals. Who assumes duty of care? Br J Neurosurg 2001;15(6):453-5.
52. Spielberg AR. On call and on-line: sociohistorical, legal, and ethical implications of e-mail for the patient-physician relationship. JAMA 1998;280:1353-9.
53. Tyler BJ. Cyberdoctors: the virtual housecall - the actual practice of medicine on the Internet is here: is it a telemedical accident waiting to happen? Indiana Law Review 1998;31:259-90.
54. Berger SB, Cepelewicz BB. Medical-legal issues in teleradiology. Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:505-10.