Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law 9th Edition by Arnold Goldman ,William Sigismond

Exercise 21

Daniels, age 70, who was experiencing severe chest pains, was immediately admitted to South View Memorial Hospital. Dr. Rose, an internist and Daniels's personal physician for many years, did a thorough examination, including an angiogram, and concluded that there was a blockage in two arteries leading to the heart. Her diagnosis was that Daniels was having a heart attack. With Daniels's consent, surgery was immediately performed, but the severe chest pains did not subside. Consequently, Daniels's wife requested that Dr. Andrews, another well-known internist, take over the case. Dr. Andrews, upon examination, determined that the severe chest pains were actually the result of a kidney stone attack. He told Daniels's wife that such an attack often produced severe chest pains similar to the pains experienced by a person having a heart attack. Daniels, within a few weeks and with his consent, then underwent a procedure for dissolving the several kidney stones. As a result of this procedure, the chest pains subsided. Does Daniels have a case against Dr. Rose?