Case 8: O’Neill v Montefiere Hospital, 11 App. Div.

2d 132,
202, N. Y.S. 2d 436 1960

Facts

 Mr. John J. O’Neill died of a heart attack on the morning of June 29,1952.
 His wife (widow) sought recovery against a hospital for failure to render
necessary emergency treatment, and against a physician for his failure and
refusal to treat the deceased.
———————————————————————————————————————————
 Mr. and Mrs. John J. O'Neill came early one morning to the hospital emergency
ward. Mr. O'Neill complained of symptoms of a heart ailment or attack.
 He was refused admission because he was a member of a Hospital Insurance
Plan (HIP) and the hospital did not take such cases.
o The only HIP doctors in the hospital were Dr. Kirstein and Dr. Craig
o Dr. Kirstein - physician ordinarily consulted by the O'Neills.
o Dr. Craig - doctor on call on the morning in question. (HIP was closed at
that time.)
 The nurse called an HIP doctor (Dr. Craig), and Mr. O'Neill took the telephone
and described his symptoms.
 Dr. Craig offered to go to the ER and examine Mr. O’neill but he refused and said
he will wait for another doctor (Dr. Kirstein) who will arrive by 8pm. The nurse then
arranged for O'Neill to see that doctor a few hours later.
 Mrs. O'Neill asked to have a doctor examine him because it was an emergency,
but this was not done.
 The O'Neils returned home, and O'Neill died shortly.

Issues

 Whether or not there was a duty owing respectively by the hospital and the doctor
to examine and treat plaintiff’s deceased husband.
 Whether the conduct of the nurse in relation to the deceased was in the nature of
a personal favor to him or whether her conduct was that of an attache dof the
hospital trying to discharge her duty.

Ruling

 There was no doctor-patient relationship established. The decedent was not

admitted to the hospital and did not underwent PE or any treatment. Absent
hospital-patient relationship is analogous to the physician-patient relationship,
there is no duty to treat.
 o The assumed general rule in court at that time is that there is no duty on
the part of a hospital to treat, even in an emergency. The hospital
therefore is not held reliable for Negligent conduct.
 The nurse was not liable, nor the hospital, nor the doctor. If the nurse, in some
way, began medical treatment prior to or after making the phone call, then the
hospital can be held liable. However, if the call was only a “favor” in nature, the
court intimates that there would be no basis for liability.

Lessons

 Physician-patient relationship is established when there is mutual consent from

the two parties involved.

Other Important Facts Unique to the Case

 In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act
(EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to
pay.