Ramirez v. Carreras’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This case concerns the scope of a physician’s duty when examining one who is not a patient. We hold that when a physician examines a person for the ben efit of a third party and no physician-patient relationship exists, the only duty owed by the physician is the duty not to injure the examinee. Expert testimony is not required in order to raise a fact question on whether that duty is breached. [[Image here]] The duty not to injure is entirely different in scope and application from the standard of care in medical negligence causes of action. In medical negligence cases, the physician’s conduct is judged against the ‘accepted standard of medical care,’ which is what a reasonable, competent, similarly-situated medical professional would do. The plaintiff must establish that standard, typically through expert testimony. However, before the issue of ‘standard of care’ arises in a medical negligence cause, it must be first determined whether a relationship existed between the doctor and patient that triggered the duty for the doctor to exercise professional judgment and care. The existence or nonexistence of this duty is a preliminary question of law. When that relationship does not exist, Texas law is clear that the physician cannot be liable for professional negligence because he has no duty to exercise professional care. [[Image here]] Texas courts have held that the relationship between Dr. Carreras and Mr. Ramirez is not a physician-patient relationship. [[Image here]] Even t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simon Ramirez and Cynthia Ramirez v. Dr. Jose Carreras

2. “when a physician examines a person for the benefit of a third party and no physician-patient relationship exists, the only duty owed by the physician is the duty not to injure the examinee”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stanley v. McCarver