Opinion ID: 1138143
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Backdrop

Text: Each physician, by virtue of the positive, substantive law of this state, has a duty of care consistent with the level of expertise the physician holds himself out as possessing and consistent with the circumstances of the case. That duty is non-delegable. See Pharr v. Anderson, 436 So.2d 1357, 1361 (Miss. 1983). It is owing to each patient he or she undertakes to treat, and in that regard the patient has a correlative right. Injury caused by substantial violations of the physician's duty and the patient's right may subject the physician to tort liability. Liability turns on a failure to provide the required level of care. It matters not whether this failure results from incompetence or negligence. Some of our cases have misleadingly stated that liability may result from either of two causes: lack of skill or neglect to apply it if possessed. Dazet v. Bass, 254 So.2d 183, 186 (Miss. 1971); DeLaughter v. Womack, 250 Miss. 190, 202, 164 So.2d 762, 767 (1964); Newport v. Hyde, 244 Miss. 870, 875, 147 So.2d 113, 115 (1962). The matter is properly seen from the patient's point of view. Liability results from the physician's failure to provide requisite care under the circumstances, and nothing turns on whether this failure resulted from incompetence or neglect. Our law has long focused upon the quality of care a physician's knowledge and skill may enable him to render. Repeatedly in our cases we find the statement that a physician must possess that reasonable degree of learning, skill and experience which is ordinarily possessed by others in his profession. Hill v. Stewart, 209 So.2d 809, 812 (Miss. 1968); DeLaughter v. Womack, 250 Miss. 190, 201-202, 164 So.2d 762, 766 (1964); Copeland v. Robertson, 236 Miss. 95, 110, 112 So.2d 236, 241 (1959). In its modernization of our previous rule, King v. Murphy uses the same starting point. 424 So.2d at 549. The locality rule was superimposed upon this obviously valid general premise. We perceived physicians as more or less isolated in their local communities and held the level of care they were obligated to render was that generally prevailing in the community. By custom, physicians in each community were empowered to set the standards by which their professional conduct would be judged.