Payton v. Weaver

Brenda Payton (plaintiff) had chronic, end-stage renal disease, meaning that her kidneys no longer worked. Payton needed to have a medical treatment called dialysis to stay alive and began receiving this treatment from Dr. John Weaver (defendant) at Biomedical Application of Oakland, Inc. (BAO) (defendant). Payton was an admitted drug addict with alcohol, weight, emotional, and financial problems. For years, Payton did not follow Weaver’s medical instructions, showed up to appointments late, and was very disruptive (e.g., she was loud, used obscenities, pulled out her needle, and showed her genitals). Weaver sent Payton several notices terminating their treatment relationship. Payton applied to Alta Bates (defendant) and Herrick Hospitals (Herrick) (defendant) for dialysis care, but they rejected her. Weaver continued to provide dialysis to Payton on an emergency basis because she did not have other care. Payton sued Weaver to compel care, and they entered into a stipulated order agreeing that Payton would behave and Weaver would provide care. Payton did not follow any of the agreed-upon conditions. Weaver contacted Payton’s attorney to end Payton’s care again and to help arrange alternate care. Payton sued Weaver, BAO, Alta Bates, and Herrick. The trial court found that none of the providers had any continuing legal duty to care for Payton. Payton appealed.