Adams v. Via Christi Reg'l Med. Ctr. - 270 Kan. 824, 19 P.3d 132 (2001)

Rule:

The comparative negligence statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-258a, will not permit a jury verdict to be reduced by any amount plaintiff may have received in settlement from other defendants.

Facts:

Plaintiffs Albert and Forestean Adams, the parents of the decedent, filed a personal injury and wrongful death action after their daughter died as a result of a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. Plaintiffs sued St. Francis Regional Medical Center, now known as Via Christi Regional Medical Center (defendant hospital), and Dr. Linus Ohaebosim (defendant doctor). Plaintiffs settled their claims against the hospital. The action against defendant doctor proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the parents. Because the parents already had received the statutory limit on wrongful death damages as settlement proceeds from the hospital, the trial court entered no judgment against defendant doctor for wrongful death damages. Plaintiffs appealed from that judgment. Defendant doctor cross-appealed on liability issues, arguing that he had no duty of care to the decedent. According to the defendant doctor, there was no physician-patient relationship between him and the decedent, and that in the absence of a physician-patient relationship, no duty arose. The defendant doctor alleged that he took no action other than discussing, in very general terms, decedent’s conditions with Mrs. Adams.

Issue:

1. Did the district court err in denying recovery of any wrongful death damages from defendant doctor?
2. Did the defendant doctor have a duty of care to the decedent?

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The appellate court noted that the comparative negligence statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-258a, will not permit a jury verdict to be reduced by any amount plaintiff may have received in settlement from other defendants. Thus, the court held that the trial court erred in not granting the plaintiffs a judgment of $ 100,000 (the statutory cap amount) for their wrongful death claim since the settlement with defendant hospital had no effect on plaintiffs' right of recovery against defendant doctor. The plaintiffs were entitled to keep the benefit of their bargain with the hospital. Anent the second issue, the Court found that the defendant doctor had a duty of care to the decedent since he consented to give medical advice about decedent’s condition. The court averred that where there was no ongoing physician-patient relationship, the physician's express or implied consent to advise or treat the patient is required for the relationship to come into being.