Opinion ID: 885506
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Change of Position for the Worse

Text: ¶ 26 As argued below, Liberty focuses upon the final element of equitable estoppel and asserts that, most importantly, it cannot be met by Selley. In particular, Liberty contends that Selley has not presented any evidence that Dr. Nelson is uniquely qualified, nor has she presented any medical evidence that requiring a change of physicians would interfere with or delay her recovery. This might be a different case had Liberty intervened in the relationship between Dr. Nelson and Selley at a much earlier point in time. As alluded to above, however, permitting Selley to continue seeing Dr. Nelson for a period of two years without objection allowed Selley to establish a well-grounded physician-patient relationship. From the perspective of an injured person, the physician-patient association is a highly personal relationship of trust and confidence that may be as important to the healing process as any other factor. ¶ 27 As Selley replied to Liberty's interrogatories at trial: I personally feel if [Liberty] would look at Dr. Nelson's diagnoses they would see he has been 99.99% right and that he has tried to get me the proper medical treatment. Dr. Nelson has been at the forefront of accurate diagnoses and proper treatment for my condition.... All the doctors that [Liberty] has had me see have tried to sweep my injuries under the carpet. Dr. Nelson knows my past and present medical condition better than any doctor I've seen. ¶ 28 The final element of equitable estoppel is satisfied. Requiring Selley to change physicians in the middle of her course of treatment, which is progressing favorably under Dr. Nelson's guidance, would result in Selley effectively changing her position for the worse. Selley would suffer a loss by being forced to forego her relationship with Dr. Nelson at this point in time. ¶ 29 In light of the foregoing analysis, we hold that the WCC erred in determining that Liberty was not estopped from asserting § 39-71-116(30), MCA (1993), as a defense to Selley's claim. ¶ 30 Reversed and remanded. KARLA M. GRAY, JIM REGNIER, JAMES C. NELSON, and TERRY N. TRIEWEILER, JJ., concur.