Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wilschinsky Ex Rel. Wilschinsky v. Medina

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 1989No. 17658Published

1DissentScarborough, Justice

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The majority expand the scope of a physician’s duty to third parties and thus significantly enlarge a physician’s potential liability. In assessing the consequences of their holding, the majority conclude that “the burden on the doctor’s treatment decisions is negligible.” In fact, one can readily assume just the opposite: the burdens already imposed on treatment decisions by physicians have driven many from the practice of medicine, and the majority opinion will further exacerbate the existing medical liability crisis. Along this same line of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Garcia v. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1988
  2. In Re RichardsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1966
  3. Hamilton Test Systems, Inc. v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API