Doctors Sued for Prescribing Drug to Patient Who Caused Fatal Car Accident

26 Jul 2007

Kentucky Court of Appeals. Schrand v. Grant, No. 1997-CA-001996-MR. July 2, 1999.

Where a driver caused an auto accident while she was under the influence of a prescription drug, the doctors who prescribed the drug can be sued by the injured victims, says the Kentucky Court of Appeals in upholding a jury verdict.

The doctors had prescribed a patient-controlled Demerol pump for pain. Even though the nurse maintaining the pump told the doctors she thought the patient might be taking too much, the doctors still allowed her to drive home.

They argued that they didn't owe a duty to the victims because their injuries weren't foreseeable. Variations of this defense are often used when an injured person seeks to recover from a professional who has set the stage for the motor vehicle crash. "My duty extends only to my patient," is one common argument used by the defense.

But the court said that "there was evidence at trial that the doctors knew, or should have known, [that the patient] was exhibiting signs of being addicted to Demerol...was using Demerol in the PCA pump faster than the normal and healthy rate; and [her] massive infusion of Demerol was likely to lead her to become irrational, pass out, have a seizure or die at any moment...

"Even with this knowledge, the doctors...allowed her to go home and did not...ensure that she was not going to drive herself...We conclude that there might be a reasonable difference of opinion as to whether it was foreseeable that the actions of the doctors could result in a tragic accident of this nature."

This decision is in line with the modern concept that the duty of a professional may extend to persons other than the client or patient. There are times when a reasonable professional would act to protect others who would foreseeably be harmed by the consequences of inaction. Making sure that a dangerously impaired patient does not drive home from an office surgical procedure would be one example of this concept. There are also times when the professional has been held liable for failing to warn others of the danger created by the patient--an example would be a patient who plans to assault a family member. And, some courts have held that if the professional knows that others are going to rely on the work product of the professional, liability for harm caused by that reliance may exist. Accountants who prepare reports that will be presented to banks in support of loans are often in this situation.

The Kentucky opinion, which effectively creates a duty on the part of doctors to other motorists on the highway, should cause medical providers to be more sensitive to dangers created by drug-impaired drivers. While it may be difficult for a doctor to completely cure an addicted patient there is no reason why the impaired person has to be given a supply of drugs and then unleashed on the driving public.

The injured victim of the negligence of a drug-impaired driver may have another avenue to compensation if his attorney is aware of court opinions such as this and properly directs the investigation of the causes of the crash.