Opinion ID: 1058706
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: physician-patient relationship & duty of care

Text: The starting point in reviewing a medical malpractice case is section 29-26-115(a) of the Tennessee Code Annotated. See Kilpatrick v. Bryant, 868 S.W.2d 594, 597 (Tenn.1993). That statute provides that the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case has the burden of proving the following: (1) The recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the profession and the specialty thereof, if any, that the defendant practices in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community at the time the alleged injury or wrongful action occurred; (2) That the defendant acted with less than or failed to act with ordinary and reasonable care in accordance with such standard; and (3) As a proximate result of the defendant's negligent act or omission, the plaintiff suffered injuries which would not otherwise have occurred. Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-115(a) (2000). The Medical Malpractice Act [7] does not explicitly require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. However, as we previously have stated, the Act codifies the common law elements of negligenceduty, breach of duty, causation, proximate cause, and damages. No claim for negligence can succeed in the absence of any one of these elements. Kilpatrick, 868 S.W.2d at 598 (citations omitted); see also Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W.3d 636, 639-40 (Tenn.2003); Burroughs v. Magee, 118 S.W.3d 323, 327-28 (Tenn.2003), reh'g denied (Tenn. Oct. 28, 2003). The question of whether the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must prove the existence of a physician-patient relationship relates to the first element of negligencei.e., whether the defendant-physician owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. In a number of cases, this Court and the Court of Appeals have stated that a physician-patient relationship is an essential or necessary element of a medical malpractice action. See Pittman v. Upjohn Co., 890 S.W.2d 425, 431 (Tenn.1994); Bradshaw v. Daniel, 854 S.W.2d 865, 870 (Tenn.1993); Steele v. Berkman, No. M2001-02250-COA-R10-CV, 2002 WL 1800982, at  (Tenn.Ct.App.Aug. 7, 2002); Estate of Doe v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 958 S.W.2d 117, 122 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997); Bass v. Barksdale, 671 S.W.2d 476, 486 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984); Dunbar v. Strimas, 632 S.W.2d 558, 562 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981). [8] That relationship has been deemed essential because, as the Court of Appeals has stated, [t]he existence of a physician's duty arises out of the professional relationship between the physician and his or her patient. Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 164 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000), see also Darby v. Union Planters Nat. Bank of Memphis, 222 Tenn. 417, 436 S.W.2d 439, 440-441 (1969) (stating, [t]here is little doubt that the undertaking of a physician to diagnose and treat the ills of a patient is, in part, contractual in nature. The relationship thus arising between a physician and patient creates a duty on the part of the physician to exercise proper care.). Under the foregoing cases, a physician's duty of care arises from the physician-patient relationship. [9] We next consider the circumstances under which such a relationship is established.