Davis v. S. Nassau Cmtys. Hosp. — Dec. 2015 (Summary)

DUTY TO WARN/MALPRACTICE

Davis v. S. Nassau Cmtys. Hosp.
No. 163 (N.Y. Dec. 16, 2015)

The Court of Appeals of New York held that a medical provider has a duty that extends to third parties, to warn a patient that the administration of certain medications could impair the patient’s ability to safely operate an automobile. A patient who presented to the hospital ED received an opioid narcotic painkiller and a benzodiazepine intravenously. The patient was discharged 90 minutes later, at 12:30 a.m., and the patient proceeded to drive herself home. As she was driving home, the patient crossed over a double yellow line and struck an automobile operated by the plaintiff. The driver filed a lawsuit against the hospital claiming damages for injuries received as a result of the hospital’s alleged medical malpractice in treating the patient.

The court held that administering medication to the patient without warning the patient of the disorienting effects of the drug “create[d] a peril affecting every motorist in [the patient’s] vicinity.” In determining that the hospital’s duty to warn extended to third parties, the court cited a number of factors. First, the court found that the burden placed upon hospitals and physicians would be small; no additional obligation was being created. Second, the court explained that the hospital was not required to prevent the patient from leaving the hospital. Rather, the hospital only had a duty to ensure the patient was properly warned about the effects of the medication administered to her. Third, the court recognized that it should proceed “cautiously and carefully” in recognizing duties of care, and explained that its holding in no way evidenced a retreat from this principle.