Opinion ID: 1138143
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: King v. Murphy Revisited

Text: When all that has been said above is considered, we today do little more than smooth some of the rough edges of King v. Murphy . King recognizes that, as a part of our law, the formulation of the duty of care is to be informed by standards of medical competence prevailing statewide in Mississippi and for a reasonable distance adjacent to state boundaries. 424 So.2d at 550. This necessarily includes Memphis, Mobile and New Orleans at the very least. When the standards of medical practice prevailing in Jackson, Mississippi, are added, it may be seen that for all practical purposes King has embraced what many call the national standard of care. Aside from highly specialized and in many instances still experimental services with respect to certain catastrophic diseases and medical problems, the quality of medical and health care in Memphis, Mobile, New Orleans and Jackson is consistent with that available anywhere in the land. The refinement of King we make on this score may be expected to eliminate legalistic debates over whether Birmingham, or Houston, or Nashville, or Atlanta is within a reasonable distance adjacent to state boundaries. Past that it should have little practical effect. On the other hand, we have added to King a pragmatic addendum by today's recognition that the physician's duty of care must take into consideration the quality and kind of facilities, services, equipment and other resources available. Nothing in King precluded consideration of this factor, which in reason and fairness ought to be a part of our law's approach to medical malpractice cases. Today we remove all doubt of the matter. [7] As we deal with general principles, gray areas necessarily exist. One involves the case where needed specialized facilities and equipment are not available locally but are reasonably accessible in major medical centers  New Orleans, Jackson, Memphis. Here as elsewhere the local physician is held to minimally acceptable standards. In determining whether the physician's actions comport with his duty of care, consideration must always be given to the time factor  is the physician confronted with what reasonably appears to be a medical emergency, or does it appear likely that the patient may be transferred to an appropriate medical center without substantial risk to the health or life of the patient? Consideration must also be given to the economic factors  are the proposed transferee facilities sufficiently superior to justify the trouble and expense of transfer? Further discussion of these factors should await proper cases.