Professional Negligence Law Reporter

Joyce Doheny, who suffered from atrial fibrillation, underwent a cardiac ablation performed by electrophysiologist Scott Shapiro. Eleven days after her postoperative follow-up visit, she suffered stroke-like symptoms and was hospitalized. A critical care physician called Shapiro to inform him of Doheny’s condition and asked him his thoughts on the situation. A week later, a CT scan of the chest revealed an atrio-esophageal fistula (AEF). Doheny, who suffered multiple embolic strokes, was left in a persistent vegetative state.

Her husband, individually and as her attorney in fact, sued Medical Faculty Associates, alleging that Shapiro had failed to alert the critical care physician of the possibility of an AEF or advise him to conduct a timely CT scan. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that Shapiro did not owe a legal duty to Doheny on the night of the phone call.

Reversing, the appellate court found that the existence of a physician-patient relationship is a question of fact. The relationship depends on mutual consent, the court found, adding that it can be express or implied and does not require a face-to-face meeting between the patient and physician. Here, the court said, there is a genuine issue as to whether Shapiro and Doheny had an ongoing physician-patient relationship. A jury could find that Shapiro’s alleged agreement with how the hospital was treating Doheny suggested that he had contributed to her treatment plan, the court said. Additionally, a jury could find that the preexisting relationship between Shapiro and Doheny extended to known complications of an ablation procedure, like AEF.

The court held that a jury could find a physician-patient relationship had given rise to a duty here.

Citation: Doheny v. Medical Faculty Assocs., Inc., 2022 WL 16641695 (D.C. Nov. 3, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: Robert B. Adams, Tysons, Va.