The Pennsylvania Superior Court has once again ruled that doctors owe a third-party duty of care to their patients’ “future, unborn children.”
An en banc panel of the court unanimously held Friday that its June 2011 ruling in Matharu v. Muir, in which it found that an unborn child qualifies as a “readily foreseeable, third-party beneficiary of the physician-patient relationship,” does not conflict with the state Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Seebold v. Prison Health Services, in which it declined to find that doctors who treat prison inmates have a duty to warn at-risk corrections officers that an inmate has a communicable disease.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
