Author:
Zacharias Rachel L.,Feldman Eric A.,Joffe Steven,Lynch Holly Fernandez
Abstract
AbstractIn most U.S. jurisdictions, clinicians providing informal “curbside” consults are protected from medical malpractice liability due to the absence of a doctor-patient relationship. A recent Minnesota Supreme Court case,Warren v. Dinter, offers the opportunity to reassess whether the majority rule is truly serving the best interests of patients.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Health Policy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference35 articles.
1. What Are We Really Talking About? An Organizing Framework for Types of Consultation and Their Implications for Physician Communication;Hale;Academic Medicine,2019
2. 15. Brief for the Minnesota Hospital Association, Minnesota Medical Association, and American Medical Association, Warren v. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 2019), available at (last visited October 10, 2021).
3. The Complexity, Relative Value, and Financial Worth of Curbside Consultations in an Academic Infectious Diseases Unit;Grace;Clinical Infectious Diseases,2010
4. Curbside Consultation: A Means to Promote Quality Patient Care;Papermaster;Applied Nursing Research,2021
5. 7. Warren v. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d. 370 (Minn. 2019).