Diggs v. Arizona Cardiologists, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that public policy supported recognizing a duty owed by consulting physician to patient because he was “in a unique position to prevent future harm” to her
• finding a duty where the consulting physician, “with his superior knowledge and experience, was in the best position to correct any error in [the treating physician’s] diagnosis,” and was aware that his advice would be relied upon
• “Dr. Johnson did not exercise independent judgment as to Cynthia Diggs’ diagnosis; rather he subordinated his professional judgment to that of the specialist in cardiology, Dr. Valdez.”
• “[T]he existence of a duty may depend on preliminary questions that must be determined by a fact finder.”
• doctor-patient relationship exists between a consulting radiologist and a patient
• imposing duty on consulting physician

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).