The Court found that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against the resident because, in a medical malpractice action, liability generally may not be imposed in the absence of a physician-patient relationship, which requires the physician to have either affirmatively treated the patient or affirmatively advised the patient as to a course of treatment. In the instant matter, the Court found that because this doctor never affirmatively treated the patient, and the resident’s scope of work was limited to transcribing medical notes for supervising attending physicians, reporting to the supervising attending physicians, and entering orders under the supervision of attendings, a physician-patient relationship was not established. Applying these principles to the documentary evidence submitted, the Court held that it was established, as a matter of law, that liability could not be imposed against the resident in the absence of a physician-patient relationship.

In our view, this decision highlights the importance of careful motion practice at the pleadings stage.