The court granted the doctors' Motion to Dismiss after finding that treating physicians do not owe their patients any fiduciary duty to provide them with a Certificate of Merit that would allow the patient to sue other doctors for medical malpractice.
The rationale for this decision was, in part, the general rule that potential experts may not be compelled to issue expert opinions against their will.
The court otherwise found that there is no valid cause of action for an alleged intentional deprivation of legal recourse for an alleged injury.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
I thank Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
The rationale for this decision was, in part, the general rule that potential experts may not be compelled to issue expert opinions against their will.
The court otherwise found that there is no valid cause of action for an alleged intentional deprivation of legal recourse for an alleged injury.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
I thank Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Sasun Bughdaryn on unsplash.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.