White v. Harris
Vermont Supreme Court
190 Vt. 647, 36 A.3d 203, 2011 Vt 115 (2011)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Fourteen-year-old Krystine White committed suicide after a suffering from a mental illness for a long period of time. During the course of her mental health treatment, Krystine enrolled in a telepsychiatry research study conducted by Mark Harris, M.D. (defendant), an employee of Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc. (FAHC) (defendant). As part of the study, Krystine participated in a one-time, 90-minute video-conference session with Harris. Afterwards, Krystine completed a questionnaire about her experience. Thereafter, Harris completed a consultation evaluation that described Krystine’s illness, provided his diagnostic impression, and set forth a treatment plan. However, Harris did not provide any further follow-up clinical services to Krystine and no medications were prescribed. Additionally, Harris provided his recommended treatment plan to Krystine’s regular group of treating physicians. After her death, Krystine’s father, Terrence White (plaintiff) filed a wrongful death action against Harris and FAHC. White argued that Harris’s treatment of Krystine fell below the required standard of care of a skillful physician. Harris and FAHC claimed that Harris did not have a doctor-patient relationship with Krystine. The trial court granted summary judgment to Harris and FAHC. White appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.