Smith v. Radecki

Supreme Court of Alaska · Torts

Tortsmedical malpracticeindependent medical examinationdutymedical malpracticephysician-patient relationshipindependent medical examinationIME

Facts

After injuring his back at work, Smith pursued workers' compensation benefits and his employer arranged for Dr. Radecki to perform an independent medical examination. Before the examination, Smith was informed that the exam was limited to issues identified by the employer's carrier, was not a substitute for personal medical care, and that no physician-patient relationship existed or was sought. Dr. Radecki reported that Smith had no objective evidence of permanent impairment caused by the work incident and recommended against further physical treatment. Later imaging revealed spinal abnormalities including a small sacral Tarlov cyst, and Smith sued Dr. Radecki alleging both failure to discover and treat his condition and, alternatively, failure to disclose conditions he allegedly did discover.

Issue

Does a physician who performs a one-time independent medical examination for a third party owe the examinee a medical malpractice duty based on a physician-patient relationship? If not, can Smith's claims based on alleged failure to diagnose, treat, or disclose survive summary judgment on this record?

Rule

Under AS 09.55.540, the duty to meet the medical malpractice standard of care arises from the existence of a physician-patient relationship. A physician performing an independent medical examination at the request of a third party, where the physician does not undertake diagnosis or treatment for the examinee and expressly disclaims such a relationship, does not thereby create a physician-patient relationship or owe the traditional malpractice duty that attends such a relationship.

🔒

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 Anchorage, Dana Mercer applied for disability benefits through her employer. The employer's insurer sent her to Dr. Leon Varga for a one-time evaluation, and before the exam Dana signed a form stating that the visit was limited to the insurer's questions, was not medical treatment, and did not create a physician-patient relationship; Dr. Varga later sent his report only to the insurer. Months later, Dana learned she had a spinal condition that Dr. Varga's report did not mention and sued him for negligent failure to diagnose and treat.

Under the majority rule applied here, Dana's medical malpractice claim will most likely:

Explanation. Under Alaska law as described in the majority opinion, the duty to meet the medical malpractice standard of care depends on a physician-patient relationship. A doctor performing an independent medical examination for a third party, with a limited role, no treatment, and an express disclaimer of a physician-patient relationship, does not thereby assume the traditional malpractice duty to diagnose and treat the examinee. (Derived from Smith v. Radecki (n.d.).)