Malpractice liability for informal consultations.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Informal ("curbside") consults are widely used by primary care physicians. These interactions occur in person, by telephone, or even by e-mail. Exposure to malpractice liability is a frequent concern of subspecialty physicians and influences their willingness to engage in this activity. To assess this risk, we reviewed reported judicial opinions involving informal consultation by physicians. METHODS: A search of the existing medical literature, and of the Westlaw national database was undertaken to identify reported judicial opinions involving informal physician consults that address whether informal consultations create a legal relationship between consulting specialist physicians and patients that gives rise to a legal duty of care owed by the consulting specialist to the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Courts have consistently ruled that no physician-patient relationship exists between a consultant and the patient who is the focus of the informal consultation. In the absence of such a relationship, the courts have found no grounds for a claim of malpractice. Malpractice risks associated with informal consultation appear to be minimal, regardless of the method of communication. While "informal consultation" is not a term used by the courts, the courts have applied a consistent set of criteria that help define the legal parameters of this activity.