In: Nursing
Explain how both the Childs case and the Hiser case would be handled differently today
Case 6 : Childs v. Weis (1969)
CLAUDE WILLIAMS, Justice.
J. C. Childs, in his individual capacity and as next friend of his
wife, Daisy Childs, brought this action against Greenville Hospital
Authority, H. Beckham, a nurse, and Dr. C. B. Weis, in which he
sought recovery of damages for personal injuries to Daisy Childs
and for the death of their minor child, Wendy Elaine Childs.
Plaintiff alleged that the Hospital Authority, the nurse and the
doctor were negligent, inter alia, in failing to provide adequate
medical care and attention to plaintiff's wife and that as a
proximate result of such negligent acts plaintiff's wife sustained
personal injuries and her newborn infant died twelve hours
following birth. Dr. Weis filed his motion for summary judgment,
supported by affidavits and request for admissions of fact on file.
The trial court sustained the motion and granted a take nothing
judgment in favor of Dr. Weis. In the same decree the court severed
the cause of action asserted against the Hospital Authority and the
nurse. From this judgment Childs has perfected this appeal.
All of the summary judgment evidence which appears in this record
may be summarized as follows:
On or about November 27, 1966 Daisy Childs, wife of J. C. Childs, a
resident of Dallas County, was approximately seven months pregnant
. On that date she was visiting in Lone Oak, Texas, and about two
o'clock A.M. she presented herself to the Greenville Hospital
emergency room. At that time she stated she was bleeding and had
labor pains. She was examined by a nurse who identified herself as
H. Beckham. According to Mrs. Childs Nurse Beckham stated that she
would call the doctor. She said the nurse returned and stated 'that
the Dr. said that I would have to go to my doctor in Dallas. I
stated to Beckham that I'm not going to make it to Dallas. Beckham
replied that yes, I would make it. She stated that I was just
starting into labor and that I would make it. The weather was cold
that night. About an hour after leaving the Greenville Hospital
Authority I had the baby while in a car on the way to medical
facilities in Sulphur Springs. The baby lived about 12
hours.'
Dr. Weis, in his affidavit, stated that he was duly licensed to
practice medicine in the State of Texas and lived in Greenville,
Hunt County, Texas. He said that he had
*106 never examined or treated Daisy
Childs and in fact had never seen or spoken to either Daisy Childs
or her husband, J. C. Childs, at any time in his life. He further
stated that he had never at any time agreed or consented to the
examination or treatment of either Daisy Childs or her husband. He
said that on a day in November 1966 he recalled a telephone call
received by him from a nurse in the emergency room at the
Greenville Surgical Hospital; that the nurse told him that there
was a negro girl in the emergency room having a 'bloody show' and
some 'labor pains'. He said the nurse advised him that this woman
had been visiting in Lone Oak, and that her OB doctor lived in
Garland, Texas, and that she also resided in Garland . The doctor
said, 'I told the nurse over the telephone to have the girl call
her doctor in Garland and see what he wanted her to do. I knew
nothing more about this incident until I was served with the
citation and a copy of the petition in this lawsuit.'
Since it is unquestionably the law that the relationship of physician and patient is dependent upon contract, either express or implied, a physician is not to be held liable for arbitrarily refusing to respond to a call of a person even urgently in need of medical or surgical assistance provided that the relation of physician and patient does not exist at the time the call is made or at the time the person presents himself for treatment.
Applying these principles of law to the factual situation here
presented we find an entire absence of evidence of a contract,
either express or implied, which would create the relationship of
patient and physician as between Dr. Weis and Mrs. Childs. Dr.
Weis, under these circumstances, was under no duty whatsoever to
examine or treat Mrs. Childs. When advised by telephone that the
lady was in the emergency room he did what seems to be a reasonable
thing and inquired as to the identity of her doctor who had been
treating her. Upon being told that the doctor was in Garland he
stated that the patient should call the doctor and find out what
should be done. This action on the part of Dr. Weis seems to be not
only reasonable but within the bounds of professional ethics.
We cannot agree with appellant that Dr. Weis' statement to the
nurse over the telephone amounted to an acceptance of the case and
affirmative instructions which she was bound to follow. Rather than
give instructions which could be construed to be in the nature of
treatment, Dr. Weis told the nurse to have the woman call her
physician in Garland and secure instructions from him.
*108 The affidavit of Mrs. Childs would
indicate that Nurse Beckham may not have relayed the exact words of
Dr. Weis to Mrs. Childs. Instead, it would seem that Nurse Beckham
told Mrs. Childs that the doctor said that she would 'have to go'
to her doctor in Dallas. Assuming this statement was made by Nurse
Beckham, and further assuming that it contained the meaning as
placed upon it by appellant, yet it is undisputed that such words
were uttered by Nurse Beckham, and not by Dr. Weis
All of appellant's points of error have been considered and are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
Case 7. Hiser v. Randolph (1980)
JACOBSON, Judge.
In this medical malpractice case, two issues are presented for
resolution: (1) Whether a physician paid by a hospital to render
emergency room services has a duty to render care to anyone
presenting themselves to the hospital for emergency care; and (2)
under the facts presented here, whether plaintiff has raised a
factual issue that proximate cause exists between the failure to
render care and the subsequent death of the patient.
.
Mohave County General Hospital is the only hospital serving the
community of Kingman, Arizona. It maintains an emergency room for
the treatment of people in need of immediate medical service. Dr.
Randolph and seven other doctors, comprising the medical profession
in the Kingman area with admitting privileges at the hospital,
established a program with the hospital by which each would take
turns in manning the emergency room as the "on call physician" for
a 12 hour period
From the record it appears that plaintiff's wife, Bonita Hiser, went with her husband to the emergency room at the hospital at approximately 11:45 p.m. on June 12, 1973. She was in a semi-comatose condition and the nurse in charge of the emergency room evaluated her as appearing to be very ill. Mrs. Hiser had an acute diabetic condition described as juvenile onset diabetes of the "brittle" variety. She had been treated in the emergency room at the hospital on the preceding day by Dr. Arnold of Kingman, her regular physician.
The emergency room nurse, after viewing Mrs. Hiser, immediately
contacted Dr. Randolph, the "on call physician" at that time. Upon
being advised as to who the patient was, Dr. Randolph stated to the
nurse, at 11:50 p.m., that he would not attend or treat Mrs. Hiser,
and that the nurse should call Dr. Arnold. When the nurse called
Dr. Arnold he responded by stating that he would not come to the
hospital at that time and that the on call physician should attend
Mrs. Hiser. The nurse relayed this information to Dr. Randolph who
again refused to attend to or see Mrs. Hiser. The nurse then called
Dr. Lingenfelter, Chief of Staff of the hospital. After a
subsequent telephone conversation between Dr. Lingenfelter and Dr.
Randolph in which Dr. Randolph reiterated that he would not treat
Mrs. Hiser, Dr. Lingenfelter came to the hospital and attended Mrs.
Hiser, arriving at approximately 12:30 a.m. Dr. Lingenfelter
immediately commenced tests and treatment for Mrs. Hiser, whom he
regarded as being very ill at the time. Dr. Lingenfelter stayed at
the hospital throughout the night until Dr. Arnold arrived in the
morning. Mrs. Hiser died at 11:00 a.m. on June 13.
*610 **776 As
to the reason for Dr. Randolph's refusal to attend to Mrs. Hiser, a
factual dispute exists. Dr. Randolph testified by deposition that
the refusal was based upon his inability to adequately treat
diabetes. From the evidence presented, however, a trier of fact
could conclude that the refusal was based upon a personal animosity
between Dr. Randolph and Mrs. Hiser or the fact that Mrs. Hiser's
husband was a lawyer. Because the fact that Dr. Randolph refused to
treat is undisputed and because of the posture in which this matter
reaches us, we assume the refusal was medically unjustified.
In examining this
issue we start with the general rule, with which we agree, that a
medical practitioner is free to contract for his services as he
sees fit and in the absence of prior contractual obligations, he
can refuse to treat a patient, even under emergency
situations.
The question remains whether Dr. Randolph has contracted away this
right, while being the doctor "on call" in charge of the
*611 **777
emergency room at Mohave General Hospital and being paid the sum of
$100 a day to perform those services.
In our opinion, Dr. Randolph, by assenting to these bylaws, and rules and regulations, and accepting payment from the hospital to act as the emergency room doctor "on call," personally became bound "to insure that all patients ... treated in the Emergency Room receive the best possible care," and agreed to insure "in the case of emergency the provisional diagnosis shall be started as soon after admission as possible." Moreover, these services were to be performed for all persons whom the "hospital shall admit ... suffering from all types of disease."
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
AUDE WILLIAMS Justice.
J. C. Childs, in his individual capacity and as next friend of
his wife, Daisy Childs, brought this action against Greenville
Hospital Authority, H. Beckham, a nurse, and Dr. C. B. Weis, in
which he sought recovery of damages for personal injuries to Daisy
Childs and for the death of their minor child, Wendy Elaine Childs.
Plaintiff alleged that the Hospital Authority, the nurse and the
doctor were negligent, inter alia, in failing to provide adequate
medical care and attention to plaintiff's wife and that as a
proximate result of such negligent acts plaintiff's wife sustained
personal injuries and her newborn infant died twelve hours
following birth. Dr. Weis filed his motion for summary judgment,
supported by affidavits and request for admissions of fact on file.
The trial court sustained the motion and granted a take nothing
judgment in favor of Dr. Weis. In the same decree the court severed
the cause of action asserted against the Hospital Authority and the
nurse. From this judgment Childs has perfected this appeal.
All of the summary judgment evidence which appears in this record
may be summarized as follows:
On or about November 27, 1966 Daisy Childs, wife of J. C. Childs, a
resident of Dallas County, was approximately seven months pregnant
. On that date she was visiting in Lone Oak, Texas, and about two
o'clock A.M. she presented herself to the Greenville Hospital
emergency room. At that time she stated she was bleeding and had
labor pains. She was examined by a nurse who identified herself as
H. Beckham. According to Mrs. Childs Nurse Beckham stated that she
would call the doctor. She said the nurse returned and stated 'that
the Dr. said that I would have to go to my doctor in Dallas. I
stated to Beckham that I'm not going to make it to Dallas. Beckham
replied that yes, I would make it. She stated that I was just
starting into labor and that I would make it. The weather was cold
that night. About an hour after leaving the Greenville Hospital
Authority I had the baby while in a car on the way to medical
facilities in Sulphur Springs. The baby lived about 12
hours.'
Dr. Weis, in his affidavit, stated that he was duly licensed to
practice medicine in the State of Texas and lived in Greenville,
Hunt County, Texas. He said that he had *106 never
examined or treated Daisy Childs and in fact had never seen or
spoken to either Daisy Childs or her husband, J. C. Childs, at any
time in his life. He further stated that he had never at any time
agreed or consented to the examination or treatment of either Daisy
Childs or her husband. He said that on a day in November 1966 he
recalled a telephone call received by him from a nurse in the
emergency room at the Greenville Surgical Hospital; that the nurse
told him that there was a negro girl in the emergency room having a
'bloody show' and some 'labor pains'. He said the nurse advised him
that this woman had been visiting in Lone Oak, and that her OB
doctor lived in Garland, Texas, and that she also resided in
Garland . The doctor said, 'I told the nurse over the telephone to
have the girl call her doctor in Garland and see what he wanted her
to do. I knew nothing more about this incident until I was served
with the citation and a copy of the petition in this lawsuit.'
Since it is unquestionably the law that the relationship of physician and patient is dependent upon contract, either express or implied, a physician is not to be held liable for arbitrarily refusing to respond to a call of a person even urgently in need of medical or surgical assistance provided that the relation of physician and patient does not exist at the time the call is made or at the time the person presents himself for treatment.
Applying these principles of law to the factual situation here
presented we find an entire absence of evidence of a contract,
either express or implied, which would create the relationship of
patient and physician as between Dr. Weis and Mrs. Childs. Dr.
Weis, under these circumstances, was under no duty whatsoever to
examine or treat Mrs. Childs. When advised by telephone that the
lady was in the emergency room he did what seems to be a reasonable
thing and inquired as to the identity of her doctor who had been
treating her. Upon being told that the doctor was in Garland he
stated that the patient should call the doctor and find out what
should be done. This action on the part of Dr. Weis seems to be not
only reasonable but within the bounds of professional ethics.
We cannot agree with appellant that Dr. Weis' statement to the
nurse over the telephone amounted to an acceptance of the case and
affirmative instructions which she was bound to follow. Rather than
give instructions which could be construed to be in the nature of
treatment, Dr. Weis told the nurse to have the woman call her
physician in Garland and secure instructions from him.
*108 The affidavit of Mrs. Childs would indicate that
Nurse Beckham may not have relayed the exact words of Dr. Weis to
Mrs. Childs. Instead, it would seem that Nurse Beckham told Mrs.
Childs that the doctor said that she would 'have to go' to her
doctor in Dallas. Assuming this statement was made by Nurse
Beckham, and further assuming that it contained the meaning as
placed upon it by appellant, yet it is undisputed that such words
were uttered by Nurse Beckham, and not by Dr. Weis
All of appellant's points of error have been considered and are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
Case 7. Hiser v. Randolph (1980)
JACOBSON, Judge.
In this medical malpractice case, two issues are presented for
resolution: (1) Whether a physician paid by a hospital to render
emergency room services has a duty to render care to anyone
presenting themselves to the hospital for emergency care; and (2)
under the facts presented here, whether plaintiff has raised a
factual issue that proximate cause exists between the failure to
render care and the subsequent death of the patient.
.
Mohave County General Hospital is the only hospital serving the
community of Kingman, Arizona. It maintains an emergency room for
the treatment of people in need of immediate medical service. Dr.
Randolph and seven other doctors, comprising the medical profession
in the Kingman area with admitting privileges at the hospital,
established a program with the hospital by which each would take
turns in manning the emergency room as the "on call physician" for
a 12 hour period
From the record it appears that plaintiff's wife, Bonita Hiser, went with her husband to the emergency room at the hospital at approximately 11:45 p.m. on June 12, 1973. She was in a semi-comatose condition and the nurse in charge of the emergency room evaluated her as appearing to be very ill. Mrs. Hiser had an acute diabetic condition described as juvenile onset diabetes of the "brittle" variety. She had been treated in the emergency room at the hospital on the preceding day by Dr. Arnold of Kingman, her regular physician.
The emergency room nurse, after viewing Mrs. Hiser, immediately
contacted Dr. Randolph, the "on call physician" at that time. Upon
being advised as to who the patient was, Dr. Randolph stated to the
nurse, at 11:50 p.m., that he would not attend or treat Mrs. Hiser,
and that the nurse should call Dr. Arnold. When the nurse called
Dr. Arnold he responded by stating that he would not come to the
hospital at that time and that the on call physician should attend
Mrs. Hiser. The nurse relayed this information to Dr. Randolph who
again refused to attend to or see Mrs. Hiser. The nurse then called
Dr. Lingenfelter, Chief of Staff of the hospital. After a
subsequent telephone conversation between Dr. Lingenfelter and Dr.
Randolph in which Dr. Randolph reiterated that he would not treat
Mrs. Hiser, Dr. Lingenfelter came to the hospital and attended Mrs.
Hiser, arriving at approximately 12:30 a.m. Dr. Lingenfelter
immediately commenced tests and treatment for Mrs. Hiser, whom he
regarded as being very ill at the time. Dr. Lingenfelter stayed at
the hospital throughout the night until Dr. Arnold arrived in the
morning. Mrs. Hiser died at 11:00 a.m. on June 13.
*610 **776 As to the reason for Dr. Randolph's
refusal to attend to Mrs. Hiser, a factual dispute exists. Dr.
Randolph testified by deposition that the refusal was based upon
his inability to adequately treat diabetes. From the evidence
presented, however, a trier of fact could conclude that the refusal
was based upon a personal animosity between Dr. Randolph and Mrs.
Hiser or the fact that Mrs. Hiser's husband was a lawyer. Because
the fact that Dr. Randolph refused to treat is undisputed and
because of the posture in which this matter reaches us, we assume
the refusal was medically unjustified.
In examining this issue we start with the general rule, with
which we agree, that a medical practitioner is free to contract for
his services as he sees fit and in the absence of prior contractual
obligations, he can refuse to treat a patient, even under emergency
situations.
The question remains whether Dr. Randolph has contracted away this
right, while being the doctor "on call" in charge of the
*611 **777 emergency room at Mohave General
Hospital and being paid the sum of $100 a day to perform those
services.
In our opinion, Dr. Randolph, by assenting to these bylaws, and rules and regulations, and accepting payment from the hospital to act as the emergency room doctor "on call," personally became bound "to insure that all patients ... treated in the Emergency Room receive the best possible care," and agreed to insure "in the case of emergency the provisional diagnosis shall be started as soon after admission as possible." Moreover, these services were to be performed for all persons whom the "hospital shall admit ... suffering from all types of disease."
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Skip
Exit
Time remaining:
00 :08 :13
Nursing
Explain how both the Childs case and the Hiser case would be handled differently today
Case 6 : Childs v. Weis (1969)
CLAUDE WILLIAMS, Justice.
J. C. Childs, in his individual capacity and as next friend of his
wife, Daisy Childs, brought this action against Greenville Hospital
Authority, H. Beckham, a nurse, and Dr. C. B. Weis, in which he
sought recovery of damages for personal injuries to Daisy Childs
and for the death of their minor child, Wendy Elaine Childs.
Plaintiff alleged that the Hospital Authority, the nurse and the
doctor were negligent, inter alia, in failing to provide adequate
medical care and attention to plaintiff's wife and that as a
proximate result of such negligent acts plaintiff's wife sustained
personal injuries and her newborn infant died twelve hours
following birth. Dr. Weis filed his motion for summary judgment,
supported by affidavits and request for admissions of fact on file.
The trial court sustained the motion and granted a take nothing
judgment in favor of Dr. Weis. In the same decree the court severed
the cause of action asserted against the Hospital Authority and the
nurse. From this judgment Childs has perfected this appeal.
All of the summary judgment evidence which appears in this record
may be summarized as follows:
On or about November 27, 1966 Daisy Childs, wife of J. C. Childs, a
resident of Dallas County, was approximately seven months pregnant
. On that date she was visiting in Lone Oak, Texas, and about two
o'clock A.M. she presented herself to the Greenville Hospital
emergency room. At that time she stated she was bleeding and had
labor pains. She was examined by a nurse who identified herself as
H. Beckham. According to Mrs. Childs Nurse Beckham stated that she
would call the doctor. She said the nurse returned and stated 'that
the Dr. said that I would have to go to my doctor in Dallas. I
stated to Beckham that I'm not going to make it to Dallas. Beckham
replied that yes, I would make it. She stated that I was just
starting into labor and that I would make it. The weather was cold
that night. About an hour after leaving the Greenville Hospital
Authority I had the baby while in a car on the way to medical
facilities in Sulphur Springs. The baby lived about 12
hours.'
Dr. Weis, in his affidavit, stated that he was duly licensed to
practice medicine in the State of Texas and lived in Greenville,
Hunt County, Texas. He said that he had *106 never
examined or treated Daisy Childs and in fact had never seen or
spoken to either Daisy Childs or her husband, J. C. Childs, at any
time in his life. He further stated that he had never at any time
agreed or consented to the examination or treatment of either Daisy
Childs or her husband. He said that on a day in November 1966 he
recalled a telephone call received by him from a nurse in the
emergency room at the Greenville Surgical Hospital; that the nurse
told him that there was a negro girl in the emergency room having a
'bloody show' and some 'labor pains'. He said the nurse advised him
that this woman had been visiting in Lone Oak, and that her OB
doctor lived in Garland, Texas, and that she also resided in
Garland . The doctor said, 'I told the nurse over the telephone to
have the girl call her doctor in Garland and see what he wanted her
to do. I knew nothing more about this incident until I was served
with the citation and a copy of the petition in this lawsuit.'
Since it is unquestionably the law that the relationship of physician and patient is dependent upon contract, either express or implied, a physician is not to be held liable for arbitrarily refusing to respond to a call of a person even urgently in need of medical or surgical assistance provided that the relation of physician and patient does not exist at the time the call is made or at the time the person presents himself for treatment.
Applying these principles of law to the factual situation here
presented we find an entire absence of evidence of a contract,
either express or implied, which would create the relationship of
patient and physician as between Dr. Weis and Mrs. Childs. Dr.
Weis, under these circumstances, was under no duty whatsoever to
examine or treat Mrs. Childs. When advised by telephone that the
lady was in the emergency room he did what seems to be a reasonable
thing and inquired as to the identity of her doctor who had been
treating her. Upon being told that the doctor was in Garland he
stated that the patient should call the doctor and find out what
should be done. This action on the part of Dr. Weis seems to be not
only reasonable but within the bounds of professional ethics.
We cannot agree with appellant that Dr. Weis' statement to the
nurse over the telephone amounted to an acceptance of the case and
affirmative instructions which she was bound to follow. Rather than
give instructions which could be construed to be in the nature of
treatment, Dr. Weis told the nurse to have the woman call her
physician in Garland and secure instructions from him.
*108 The affidavit of Mrs. Childs would indicate that
Nurse Beckham may not have relayed the exact words of Dr. Weis to
Mrs. Childs. Instead, it would seem that Nurse Beckham told Mrs.
Childs that the doctor said that she would 'have to go' to her
doctor in Dallas. Assuming this statement was made by Nurse
Beckham, and further assuming that it contained the meaning as
placed upon it by appellant, yet it is undisputed that such words
were uttered by Nurse Beckham, and not by Dr. Weis
All of appellant's points of error have been considered and are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
Case 7. Hiser v. Randolph (1980)
JACOBSON, Judge.
In this medical malpractice case, two issues are presented for
resolution: (1) Whether a physician paid by a hospital to render
emergency room services has a duty to render care to anyone
presenting themselves to the hospital for emergency care; and (2)
under the facts presented here, whether plaintiff has raised a
factual issue that proximate cause exists between the failure to
render care and the subsequent death of the patient.
.
Mohave County General Hospital is the only hospital serving the
community of Kingman, Arizona. It maintains an emergency room for
the treatment of people in need of immediate medical service. Dr.
Randolph and seven other doctors, comprising the medical profession
in the Kingman area with admitting privileges at the hospital,
established a program with the hospital by which each would take
turns in manning the emergency room as the "on call physician" for
a 12 hour period
From the record it appears that plaintiff's wife, Bonita Hiser, went with her husband to the emergency room at the hospital at approximately 11:45 p.m. on June 12, 1973. She was in a semi-comatose condition and the nurse in charge of the emergency room evaluated her as appearing to be very ill. Mrs. Hiser had an acute diabetic condition described as juvenile onset diabetes of the "brittle" variety. She had been treated in the emergency room at the hospital on the preceding day by Dr. Arnold of Kingman, her regular physician.
The emergency room nurse, after viewing Mrs. Hiser, immediately
contacted Dr. Randolph, the "on call physician" at that time. Upon
being advised as to who the patient was, Dr. Randolph stated to the
nurse, at 11:50 p.m., that he would not attend or treat Mrs. Hiser,
and that the nurse should call Dr. Arnold. When the nurse called
Dr. Arnold he responded by stating that he would not come to the
hospital at that time and that the on call physician should attend
Mrs. Hiser. The nurse relayed this information to Dr. Randolph who
again refused to attend to or see Mrs. Hiser. The nurse then called
Dr. Lingenfelter, Chief of Staff of the hospital. After a
subsequent telephone conversation between Dr. Lingenfelter and Dr.
Randolph in which Dr. Randolph reiterated that he would not treat
Mrs. Hiser, Dr. Lingenfelter came to the hospital and attended Mrs.
Hiser, arriving at approximately 12:30 a.m. Dr. Lingenfelter
immediately commenced tests and treatment for Mrs. Hiser, whom he
regarded as being very ill at the time. Dr. Lingenfelter stayed at
the hospital throughout the night until Dr. Arnold arrived in the
morning. Mrs. Hiser died at 11:00 a.m. on June 13.
*610 **776 As to the reason for Dr. Randolph's
refusal to attend to Mrs. Hiser, a factual dispute exists. Dr.
Randolph testified by deposition that the refusal was based upon
his inability to adequately treat diabetes. From the evidence
presented, however, a trier of fact could conclude that the refusal
was based upon a personal animosity between Dr. Randolph and Mrs.
Hiser or the fact that Mrs. Hiser's husband was a lawyer. Because
the fact that Dr. Randolph refused to treat is undisputed and
because of the posture in which this matter reaches us, we assume
the refusal was medically unjustified.
In examining this issue we start with the general rule, with
which we agree, that a medical practitioner is free to contract for
his services as he sees fit and in the absence of prior contractual
obligations, he can refuse to treat a patient, even under emergency
situations.
The question remains whether Dr. Randolph has contracted away this
right, while being the doctor "on call" in charge of the
*611 **777 emergency room at Mohave General
Hospital and being paid the sum of $100 a day to perform those
services.
In our opinion, Dr. Randolph, by assenting to these bylaws, and rules and regulations, and accepting payment from the hospital to act as the emergency room doctor "on call," personally became bound "to insure that all patients ... treated in the Emergency Room receive the best possible care," and agreed to insure "in the case of emergency the provisional diagnosis shall be started as soon after admission as possible." Moreover, these services were to be performed for all persons whom the "hospital shall admit ... suffering from all types of disease."
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent