Curbside Consults in Clinical Medicine: Empirical and Liability Challenges

In most U.S. jurisdictions, clinicians providing informal "curbside" consults are protected from medical malpractice liability due to the absence of a doctor-patient relationship. A recent Minnesota Supreme Court case, Warren v. Dinter, offers the opportunity to reassess whether the majori...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of law, medicine & ethics medicine & ethics, 2021-01, Vol.49 (4), p.599-610
Main Authors: Zacharias, Rachel L, Feldman, Eric A, Joffe, Steven, Lynch, Holly Fernandez
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clinical Medicine
Consultants
Hospitalists
Humans
Liability
Liability, Legal
Majority rule
Malpractice
Medical diagnosis
Medical malpractice
Medical records
Nurse practitioners
Patients
Physician-Patient Relations
Physicians
Professional malpractice
Referral and Consultation
State court decisions
Supreme courts
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In most U.S. jurisdictions, clinicians providing informal "curbside" consults are protected from medical malpractice liability due to the absence of a doctor-patient relationship. A recent Minnesota Supreme Court case, Warren v. Dinter, offers the opportunity to reassess whether the majority rule is truly serving the best interests of patients.
ISSN:1073-1105
1748-720X
DOI:10.1017/jme.2021.83