Millard v. Corrado
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern Division
14 S.W.3d 42 (1999)
Dr. Joseph Corrado (defendant) was a general surgeon with active staff privileges at Audrain Medical Center (AMC) and was the hospital’s “on call” surgeon. Prior to leaving for an out-of-town meeting, Corrado had asked Dr. Ben Jolly to “fill in” for him during his on call shift. However, Jolly did not have privileges at AMC to perform general surgery. Corrado did not notify anyone else at AMC that he would not be at AMC to cover his shift. Later that morning, Millard was involved in an automobile accident in which she suffered internal bleeding and other critical injuries. After EMTs had stabilized Millard, they had to decide which hospital to transport her to. AMC was approximately 14 miles away from their location while the University of Missouri Medical Center was about 25 miles away. EMTs chose to transport Millard to AMC because it was known to have a 24-hour emergency room staffed with an on call general surgeon and equipment needed to handle trauma cases. EMTs radioed ahead and informed AMC that they were coming with Millard, but AMC did not respond to the EMT’s message. Upon arriving at AMC, Millard was treated while Corrado was paged twice without responding. Jolly and another physician evaluated Millard and agreed that she required surgery, but they were not eligible to perform it. Shortly thereafter, Corrado responded to his page, was briefly told about Millard’s condition, and suggested that she be transported to the University of Missouri Medical Center for surgery. Millard was transferred and underwent surgery approximately four hours after the accident occurred. Millard had suffered extreme internal bleeding and loss of use of her left kidney, gallbladder, colon, and part of her small intestine. Millard brought suit against Corrado alleging negligence and seeking damages. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Corrado because Millard failed to establish the presence of a patient-physician relationship. Millard appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (not provided.)
Concurrence (Teitelman, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 726,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 726,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.