Opinion ID: 1058706
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether dr. cage owed duty of care irrespective of physician-patient relationship

Text: The plaintiffs argue that Dr. Cage owed Mrs. Kelley a duty of care irrespective of whether there technically was a physician-patient relationship. The plaintiffs assert that medical malpractice cases are governed by the Medical Malpractice Act and that the Act does not explicitly require the plaintiff to prove the existence of a physician-patient relationship. The plaintiffs also argue that the case of Diggs v. Arizona Cardiologists, Ltd. [198 Ariz. 198, 8 P.3d 386 (Ct.App.2000)] provides the better reasoned view of liability of consulting physicians for their negligence which causes injury to, or death of, a patient. [19] See also Meena v. Wilburn, 603 So.2d 866 (Miss.1992). [20] We decline to address this issue because it was not raised below, either in the trial court or in the Court of Appeals. The only issue decided by the trial court was whether there are disputed issues of fact as to the existence of a physician-patient relationship. Accordingly, the  Diggs issue asserted by the plaintiffs is not properly before the Court. See Tamco Supply v. Pollard, 37 S.W.3d 905, 909 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (stating, It is well settled in this state that a party on appeal will not be permitted to depart from the theory on which the case was tried in the lower court. Issues not raised or complained of in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.). We therefore leave that issue open for consideration in a future case in which the issue is properly raised.