Hurley v. Eddingfield

Supreme Court of Indiana · Torts

Tortsphysician dutyno duty to treatrefusal to contractmedical licensingwrongful deathdemurrer

Facts

The defendant was a duly licensed practicing physician who held himself out as a general practitioner and had previously served as the decedent's family physician. When the decedent became dangerously ill, a messenger informed the defendant of the severity of the illness, tendered the physician's fee, and stated that no other physician could be obtained in time and that the decedent relied on the defendant. The complaint alleged that no other patients required the defendant's immediate attention, that he could have gone if willing, and that he refused without any reason whatever to render aid. The decedent then died, allegedly wholly because of the defendant's refusal.

Issue

Does a licensed physician who holds himself out as a general practitioner, and who has previously acted as a person's family physician, have a legal duty to render medical aid when requested and tendered a fee, such that refusal to do so can support liability for the person's death?

Rule

A physician is not bound to render professional services to every person who applies, and a medical license does not impose a compulsory duty to practice or to accept employment on any terms other than those the physician chooses to accept.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dayton, Ohio, Nora Kim develops a rapidly worsening infection late at night. Her brother goes to Dr. Alan Mercer, a licensed general practitioner who is at home, has no other patients to see, is told that no other doctor can reach Nora in time, and is handed cash for the visit; Dr. Mercer says only that he does not wish to take the case and closes the door. Nora dies before morning.

If Nora's estate sues Dr. Mercer for wrongful death based solely on his refusal to come, which is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority rule is that the alleged wrong in these circumstances is merely the physician's refusal to enter into a contract of employment. A medical license is permission to practice, not a compulsory undertaking to serve every applicant, so the refusal alone is not actionable on these facts. (Derived from Hurley v. Eddingfield (n.d.).)