JASON M. GREENWALD AND MARJORIE GREENWALD, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT GRAYSON, M.D., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellants sought damages from a physician for failing to diagnose a congenital disease in a child they were considering for adoption. The trial court directed a verdict against them on the medical malpractice count and the jury returned a verdict against them on the contract count. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because no physician-patient relationship existed, the appellants could only pursue a contract claim, not a negligence claim.
The court held that the directed verdict was proper because the appellants could not pursue a negligence claim for medical malpractice without a physician-patient relationship. The appellants' exclusive remedy, if any, was a breach of contract action, which the jury rejected.
“A physician-patient relationship did not exist between the parties to this action. Appellants' relationship with the doctor was exclusively in contract. Therefore, the appellants, as plaintiffs, could have recovered only in contract.”
The court's holding that negligence claims require a physician-patient relationship, which did not exist here.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants engaged Dr. Grayson to perform medical services related to evaluating a child they were considering for adoption. The doctor allegedly …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Physician-Patient Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs appeal a final judgment for the appellee. Their complaint alleged that the appellee, a medical doctor, improperly performed medical services for which he had been employed. They did not allege that they were patients of the doctor but alleged that he had failed to recognize symptoms of a congenital disease in a child the appellants were considering for adoption. The complaint was in two counts. The first count claimed negligent performance of the medical duties, and the second claimed the breach of a contract to advise appellants of the fitness of the child for adoption. At the trial, the appellants suffered a directed verdict on the count alleging negligence and a jury verdict for the defendant on the count alleging breach of contract. This appeal is from the final judgment which was entered at the conclusion of the trial.
The appellants have presented three points. The first and the third points do not require an extended discussion and will be considered initially.
The first point urges that the trial court should have entered a default against the defendant. No error has been shown. See Babb v. Lincoln Auto Finance Co., Fla.App. 1961, 133 So.2d 566.
The third point urges error upon the court’s failure to allow certain evidence as to damages upon the trial of count two. Inasmuch as the appellants suffered a jury verdict for the defendant on this count and no point is directed to the judgment upon liability, we do not consider the third point.
Appellants’ second point urges that the trial judge should not have directed a verdict upon the count which alleged negligence in the performance of medical services. In effect, this count was for medical malpractice, but there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the physician resulting in an injury to the patient. A physician-patient relationship did not exist between the parties to this action. Appellants’ relationship with the doctor was exclusively in contract. Therefore, the appellants, as plaintiffs, could have recovered only in contract. See Woodbury v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 57 Fla. 249, 49 So. 556, 561, 21 L.R.A.,N.S., 1034 (1909); Dustin v. Curtis, 74 N.H. 266, 67 A. 220, 11 L.R.A., N.S., 504 (1907). See also Randolph’s Adm’r v. Snyder, 139 Ky. 159, 129 S.W. 562 (1910); Prosser, Torts § 81, p. 482 (2nd ed.). Compare Fradley v. County of Dade, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So.2d 48.
No harmful error having been demonstrated, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wallerstein v. Hosp. Corp. OF Am., 573 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…e have gleaned from the scattered allegations on the part of the pleader; and we also reverse as to the Hospital based on the doctrine of respondeat superior. We affirm the dismissal of the action as to all other theories. See Greenwald v. Grayson, 189 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.…
-
Joseph v. Sherif Shafey, M.D. & Sherif Shafey, M.D., P.A., 580 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…isted privity between appellant and Dr. Shaf-ey, and Dr. Shafey must have owed, and breached, a duty to appellant. Absent privity and a breach of a duty, no cause of action lies. See Forlaw v. Fitzer, 456 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1984); Greenwald v. Grayson, 189 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The facts in this case fail to show privity between appellant and Dr. Shafey, as well as the breach of any duty to appellant. We, therefore, find no cause of action. Accordingly, we affirm.…
-
Pate v. James B. Threlkel, M.D., 640 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…n, Liability of Doctor or Other Health Practitioner to Third Party Contracting Contagious Disease From Doctor’s Patient, 3 A.L.R. 5th 370 (1992). . Appellees also rely on the Third District Court of Appeal’s early decision in Greenwald v. Gray-son, 189 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Therein, the court affirmed a directed verdict entered in a medical malpractice claim noting that there was "no evidence of negligence on the part of the physician resulting in an injury to the patient. A physician-patient relati…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fradley v. Cnty. OF Dade, 187 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Babb v. Lincoln Auto Fin. Co., 133 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Woodbury v. The Tampa Water Works Co., 57 Fla. 249 (Fla. 1909)