Datiz by Datiz v. Shoob, 71 N.Y.2d 867 (1988)

A referring physician can be held liable for a patient’s injuries if the physician was independently negligent in the initial diagnosis, and that negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries, even if the treating physician to whom the patient was referred was also negligent.

Summary

This case addresses the liability of a referring physician for the negligence of a treating physician. The New York Court of Appeals held that a referring pediatrician could be liable for the infant plaintiff’s injuries if the pediatrician was independently negligent in diagnosing the infant’s condition, and this misdiagnosis proximately caused the injuries. The court emphasized that an initial wrongdoer cannot escape liability by showing that a subsequent treating physician was also negligent. This decision clarifies that a referring physician’s liability extends beyond merely the act of referral when the referring physician’s own negligence contributes to the patient’s harm.

Facts

The infant plaintiff was initially seen by the defendant, a referring pediatrician. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant negligently misdiagnosed the infant’s condition. Subsequently, the infant was referred to another treating physician. The plaintiff then sustained injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the referring pediatrician’s misdiagnosis proximately caused those injuries.

Procedural History

The lower court’s decision was appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division’s order was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a referring physician can be held liable for a patient’s injuries when the physician was independently negligent in diagnosing the patient’s condition, and that misdiagnosis was a proximate cause of the injuries, even if the treating physician to whom the patient was referred was also negligent.

Holding

Yes, because a referring physician, as the initial wrongdoer, cannot escape liability merely by showing that the subsequent treating physician to whom the patient was referred was also negligent, provided that the referring physician’s own negligence in diagnosis was a proximate cause of the injuries.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished the case from the general rule that the mere referral of a patient does not make the referring doctor liable for the treating physician’s negligence, citing Kavanaugh v Nussbaum, 71 NY2d 535; Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 79; Graddy v New York Med. Coll., 19 AD2d 426, 429; Nisenholtz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 126 Misc 2d 658, 663. The court found that evidence existed in the record that allowed the jury to conclude that the defendant pediatrician was independently negligent in diagnosing the infant plaintiff’s condition. This independent negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The court cited Ravo v Rogatnick, 70 NY2d 305, 310 and Suria v Shiftman, 67 NY2d 87, 98. The court reasoned, “[T]his being so, defendant, as the initial wrongdoer, cannot escape liability merely by showing that the subsequent treating physician to whom plaintiff was referred was also negligent”. This highlights the importance of the referring physician’s initial diagnosis and its potential impact on the patient’s subsequent care and outcome. The decision emphasizes that a physician cannot avoid responsibility for their own negligent actions simply because another physician later treated the patient. The focus remains on whether the referring physician’s actions were a proximate cause of the injury.