ELM

A physician has a duty to the public to advise and warn a patient about disorder hazards that could endanger others.

Seizure Causes Vehicular Injury

The physician did not meet the standard of care because he needed to:

	Correct Answer
Warn individuals who could be harmed by the patient.	False
Provide the patient with pertinent information about his disorder.	True
Anticipate the public jeopardy if his patient had a seizure while driving.	True
Prevent the patient from having a seizure.	False

General principle drawn from your analysis of this case:

	Correct Answer
A physician has a duty to advise a patient about the aspects of a disorder that are not readily discernable, but could endanger a third party in the future.	True

When a patient’s illness poses a foreseeable risk to other people, a physician has a duty to explain these risks so that the patient has the opportunity to curtail his/her activity appropriately. If a physician does not do so, he/she may be held liable to a person injured when the risk materializes. The physician did not meet the standard of care because he did not take action to prevent his patient from injuring other people. He did not provide the patient with pertinent and accurate information about the nature of his seizures even though such information was necessary for the safety of others.

Because seizures are difficult to control, the physician should have anticipated that the public would be in jeopardy if his patient had a seizure while driving a car.

About ELM
ELM Exchange, Inc. is a leading provider of online, case-based risk management and patient safety education. ELM courseware is currently used in healthcare organizations nationwide including Clarian Health Risk Retention Group, University of Texas System, Sutter Health and Evanston-Northwestern Healthcare.

For more information about ELM or a full course demonstration, please e-mail info@elmexchange.com.

All Web site design, text, graphics, the selection and arrangement thereof, are Copyright © 1999 - 2008 by ELM Exchange, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Any use of materials in this e-mail or on this Web site, including reproduction, modification, distribution or republication, without the prior written consent of ELM, is strictly prohibited. Case of the Week is not a source of legal advice for actual legal problems. The authors and producers are not offering legal advice. Although the case studies used are based on actual medical malpractice cases, the facts have been adapted to illustrate various clinicolegal issues. Legal principles have been adduced from common law decisions, not from statutory or regulatory laws. The Case of the Week quiz component asks readers to conduct a situational analysis by applying the legal principles illustrated in the case to the situations presented in the quiz questions. The questions are derived from the legal principles introduced in the case study and are intended to be thought-provoking, the questions are not necessarily derived from the materials discussed in the case. Legal considerations involved in medical malpractice claim adjudications arise in specific factual contexts that require case-specific analysis, interpretations and the applications of often times unclear or changing principles. Because of variations in fact patterns and local jurisdictions, specific consultation should be obtained before formal action is taken based on any information contained in this publication. Information in this publication is not intended to be, and should not be used as a substitute for legal advice or contextually based claim adjudication. For specific guidelines on any actual or potential malpractice claim, or for an opinion on a specific liability exposure, consult an attorney.