Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief
  • Case Opinion

White v. Harris - 2011 VT 115, 190 Vt. 647, 36 A.3d 203

Rule:

Under Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1908, whether or not a doctor has ceased treating a patient is irrelevant to whether he or she may be held liable for injuries resulting from his or her failure to exercise the proper degree of care while treating the patient. It is the doctor's responsibility for the services provided that is significant here, and not simply the duration of the doctor-patient relationship itself.

Facts:

The decedent suffered from ongoing mental health problems. On the recommendation of her case manager, she consulted with defendant Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc.’s (Fletcher) psychiatrist through a telepsychiatry research study he was conducting. The decedent and her parents (plaintiffs) participated in a one-time, 90-minute videoconference session with the psychiatrist in August 2006. Following the session, the participants completed a questionnaire about their reaction to using telemedicine. The psychiatrist later completed a consultation evaluation that described decedent and the history of her present illness; it also provided the doctor's diagnostic impression of decedent and set forth recommendations for an initial treatment plan. The evaluation specifically stated that, consistent with the telepsychiatry research protocol, no follow-up services would be provided, and no medication prescriptions would be directly provided by the doctor. The report further explained that the recommended treatment plan was to be weighed by decedent's treatment team, including her primary care physician, for possible implementation. After sending his evaluation, the psychiatrist had no further interaction with plaintiffs, decedent, or any member of her treatment team. On June 10, 2007, decedent committed suicide. An autopsy report indicated that she died from the combined effects of ingesting Propoxyphene, opiates, and Citalopram. The psychiatrist had not prescribed or recommended any of these medications. Plaintiffs sued Fletcher, the doctors and medical care providers, and argued that summary judgment was improperly granted on the issue of the duty owed to decedent by the psychiatrist. 

Issue:

Did the psychiatrist owe the decedent a duty of care?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court stated that although the study provided no treatment component directly to the decedent, other than recommendations to her treatment team, a limited doctor-patient relationship was established through the 90-minute consultation, and a duty of due care applied. Even if doctor-patient contact had ended, this did not terminate the doctor's responsibility for the consequences of any lapses in his duty to provide services consistent with the applicable standard of care for the consultation. Under Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1908, whether or not a doctor had ceased treating a patient was irrelevant to whether he might be held liable for injuries resulting from his failure to exercise the proper degree of care while treating the patient. As the psychiatrist had a duty of care, and this was the sole issue raised on summary judgment, remand was required.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates