Smith v. Rodillo

The trial court improperly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant urologist in the plaintiff's medical malpractice suit, since there was evidence that the urologist participated in the patient's diagnosis and treatment, supporting the existence of a physician-patient relationship.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Glenn Smith sued Eugene S. Rodillo, M. D., a urologist, claiming that Rodillo was professionally negligent in failing to examine Smith after he presented at Elbert Memorial Hospital with symptoms which warranted examination by a urologist, and that he suffered damages as a result. Before trial, the trial court granted Rodillo’s motion to exclude certain testimony by Smith’s urology expert regarding the causation and permanence of Smith’s alleged erectile dysfunction. The trial court then bifurcated the proceedings into an initial trial on the issue of whether a physician-patient relationship existed between Smith and Rodillo, to be followed by a trial on the issue of damages. At the close of Smith’s case, Rodillo moved for directed verdict on the issue of the physician-patient relationship. The trial court granted the motion and then entered judgment for Rodillo.

On appeal, Smith contends that because there was some evidence supporting the existence of a physician-patient relationship between Smith and Rodillo, the trial court erred in directing a verdict in Rodillo’s favor. Smith also claims that the trial court erred in excluding portions of his expert’s testimony. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for Rodillo, and that the trial court’s order excluding portions of Smith’s expert’s testimony must be vacated and the case remanded with direction. Accordingly, we reverse in part and vacate in part.

Smith v. Rodillo

The trial court improperly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant urologist in the plaintiff's medical malpractice suit, since there was evidence that the urologist participated in the patient's diagnosis and treatment, supporting the existence of a physician-patient relationship.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report