I read the whole doc. I don't know what to think anymore. Both the opinion and dissent make sense (someone once told me "when smart people come to different conclusions, usually none of the conclusions are very stupid").
I guess the debate is about whether the hospitalist
a) had a duty, which if not done well, harm could be foreseen, and/or even acted as a "gatekeeper"; or
b) just provided advice, one of the inputs for the decision making, and/or controlled just one of the paths to treatment, and had no expectation first doctor would rely on him exclusively.
Both are argued really well. The back-and-forth between them, in the paraphrasing and footnotes, is fun to read. It's interesting to see how they use the same facts (e.g. that Dinter was assigned randomly) to draw opposite conclusions. Note that both even agree that "if Dinter breached the applicable standard of care for hospitalists, his negligence should have consequences."
I guess the debate is about whether the hospitalist
a) had a duty, which if not done well, harm could be foreseen, and/or even acted as a "gatekeeper"; or
b) just provided advice, one of the inputs for the decision making, and/or controlled just one of the paths to treatment, and had no expectation first doctor would rely on him exclusively.
Both are argued really well. The back-and-forth between them, in the paraphrasing and footnotes, is fun to read. It's interesting to see how they use the same facts (e.g. that Dinter was assigned randomly) to draw opposite conclusions. Note that both even agree that "if Dinter breached the applicable standard of care for hospitalists, his negligence should have consequences."
Huh.