PHOENIX — The state Court of Appeals sent a message to doctors who do reviews for insurance companies: Just because the person you're checking isn't technically your patient, that doesn't immunize you from malpractice suits.
In a unanimous decision, the judges rejected the contention of Dr. Scott Krasner that he owed no duty of care to Jeremy Ritchie, whose injuries he was reviewing at the request of an insurer. Without a legal duty of care, Krasner argued, any mistake or omission he might have made is legally irrelevant.
But Judge Patrick Irvine said Krasner — and other doctors in his position — do have a duty to provide patients the information they need, information they will rely on in deciding whether to seek further treatment.
This case stems from a 2000 incident in which Ritchie injured his back at work. Chiropractors recommended to the workers' compensation carrier that he visit a specialist. The insurer contracted with Krasner to do an evaluation. Krasner reported that he could go back to work with no restrictions.
People are also reading…
Ritchie became eligible for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid program, and a doctor ordered immediate surgery. That doctor said the delay caused part of the spinal cord to die.
At a malpractice trial after Ritchie died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, a jury found Krasner 28.5 percent at fault. For example, the judge said, a duty to exercise care exists when a doctor is in "a unique position to prevent harm."
The appellate court acknowledged that Ritchie, before being seen by Krasner, signed an agreement saying there is no doctor-patient relationship, and that the results of the exam ordered by the insurer would not be provided to Ritchie. But Irvine said that did not eliminate Krasner's duty to do his job in a reasonable manner.
