Doctors may be liable in Oregon cyclist’s death

SALEM, Ore. (CN) — The medical professionals who prescribed and provided drugs to a patient who then abused those drugs and fatally struck a cyclist with her car may be held liable for negligence, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

“We are not persuaded that Oregon common law should grant medical professionals a special dispensation that limits liability for harm caused by foreseeable risks of physical harm that the professional unreasonably creates in the course of treating a patient,” Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Meagan Flynn wrote.

Marika Stone was killed in 2017 when a truck operated by an impaired Shantel Witt veered onto the opposite shoulder of a rural two-lane road and struck her while she was on a bike ride with friends in Bend, Oregon.

Jerry Stone, the personal representative of Marika Stone’s estate, accused Witt’s health care providers — two doctors, three Oregon health clinics and a major pharmacy chain — of sharing liability for the fatal accident. Witt was prescribed highly addictive drugs — clonazepam, carisoprodol and hydrocodone — to manage pain and anxiety.

The medical providers argued their liability for negligently caused harm is limited only to patients rather than third parties like Stone. They also argued an exception to that general rule is too narrow to apply to this case. The Oregon Supreme Court disagreed.

“The problem with defendants’ argument is that it rests on an incorrect premise — that ordinary negligence principles do not apply to those acting as medical professionals,” Flynn wrote for the court. “This court has never held that liability for negligent medical professionals is limited to those with whom they have some existing professional relationship.”

The relationship between medical providers and their patients can affect the nature of the obligation owed to others, Flynn explained, but that relationship doesn’t preclude liability when the provider’s “unreasonable conduct in treating a patient also creates a foreseeable risk of physical harm to people in the world generally.”

The court recognized the “creation of the risk” assessed in negligence claims is a broad and flexible concept.

“There is — appropriately — no dispute that plaintiff’s allegations would establish that defendants’ conduct in this case created a foreseeable risk of Witt driving while impaired and colliding with other road users,” Flynn wrote.

The court reasoned that the question at the heart of the case is not whether Jerry Stone’s claim is an ordinary negligence claim, but rather whether it depends on asserting facts that establish a special circumstance or relationship. The answer to the latter is no, Flynn wrote.

“Defendants are correct that being a medical professional can alter the path to liability in negligence,” Flynn wrote. “But defendants are mistaken that a special relationship is necessary for liability in this case, and they are mistaken that medical professionals can only be liable for harm to those with whom they have a professional relationship.”

Jerry Stone adequately accused the medical providers of engaging in unreasonable conduct by prescribing drugs that didn’t appropriately treat Witt’s conditions; by prescribing and dispensing addictive drugs despite knowing Witt was abusing the drugs; and by not warning Witt of the dangers associated with impaired driving.

The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms an order from the Oregon Court of Appeals, which found that the medical defendants were not insulated from the obligation to avoid creating a foreseeable risk due to their status as medical or pharmaceutical providers.

Originally, the Deschutes County Circuit Court tossed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim, finding the medical defendants didn’t owe any obligation to avoid creating a foreseeable risk of injury or harm to Marika Stone because she was not their patient.

The Supreme Court held that if Jerry Stone’s facts underlying his claim are proven, they provide a basis for liability in negligence. The case returns to Deschutes for further proceedings.

St. Charles Health System, one of the defendant health clinics, said in a statement that it respectfully appreciated the court’s decision, but raised concern about how the ruling broadens liability.

“St. Charles agrees that liability for harm actually caused by a defendant should depend on the court’s well-established doctrines of reasonableness and foreseeability limited in scope by existing caselaw and common sense,” St. Charles Health System spokesperson Alandra Johnson said. “We are disappointed that the court appears to have expanded that scope of liability with its opinion today.”

Counsel for Jerry Stone did not respond to a request for comment before press time, nor did the additional medical provider defendants.