In a 2-1 decision, the Illinois appellate court has ruled that a physician performing a DOT physical does not owe the motor carrier a duty to perform the physical with a reasonable degree of care and competence. The case, Hollywood Trucking, Inc. v. Watters, et.al., (No. 5-06-0231) presents a somewhat unique fact pattern and provides an additional reason why motor carriers should send prospective drivers to physicians hired by the motor carrier, not the driver.
Hollywood Trucking hired driver James Atkinson and accepted from Atkinson a DOT Medical Examination Report indicating that Roger Watters, M.D. performed a DOT physical on Atkinson and found no abnormalities or conditions in the body systems listed in the DOT’s standardized form. Atkinson listed on the DOT form that he had no history of back or spinal injury, disease, or lower back pain. Dr. Watters reported on the DOT form that Atkinson had no previous surgery to his back or spine, no deformities to his back or spine, no limitation of motion to his back or spine, and no tenderness to his back or spine.
After about a month on the job, Atkinson fell from a trailer, injured his back, and filed a workers’ compensation claim. Hollywood Trucking thereafter filed a lawsuit against Dr. Watters and his employer, Primary Care Group, alleging, in part, that Dr. Watters was negligent in failing to recognize obvious surgical scars on Atkinson’s back, failing to recognize that Atkinson lied when reporting no history of back or spinal injury or disease, and certifying that Atkinson met the DOT physical standards when he did not. Hollywood Trucking further alleged that as a proximate result of this negligence, it hired Atkinson and became liable for his workers’ compensation claim, when it would not have hired Atkinson if the prior back surgeries had been disclosed. The trial court dismissed the negligence claim and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that “a physician owes no duty to a prospective employer, such as Hollywood, to exercise ordinary care in physically examining an individual to determine whether he or she is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle pursuant to DOT regulations . . .”
The important point for trucking companies is that the appellate court’s opinion focused on the lack of relationship between Hollywood Trucking and Dr. Watters. The question of whether a duty exists is dependent upon whether the defendant and plaintiff stood in such a relationship to each other that the law imposed upon defendant an obligation of reasonable conduct for the benefit of plaintiff. Kirk v. Michael Reese Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 117 Ill.2d 507, 525 (1987). The court noted there was no allegation of a direct relationship between Hollywood Trucking and Dr. Watters. The DOT physical was not performed at Hollywood Trucking’s request. Hollywood Trucking did not direct that its prospective hires be examined by Dr. Watters or at Primary Care Group. Atkinson was not a Hollywood Trucking employee at the time of the physical. According to the appellate court, the absence of any relationship between Hollywood Trucking and Dr. Watters or his employer, Primary Care Group, meant that Dr. Watters and Primary Care Group did not owe Hollywood Trucking a duty to perform Atkinson’s DOT physical with ordinary care.
Significantly, the appellate court rejected Hollywood Trucking’s argument that Dr. Watters and Primary Care Group owed it a duty because they undertook to examine Atkinson and record the results with the understanding that prospective employers would rely on their findings to conclude the driver met the DOT’s physical requirements and make hiring decisions accordingly. The appellate court reasoned that the DOT physical requirements were designed to protect the traveling public and further public safety, and not to allow prospective employers to assess the likelihood of future workplace injuries.
In a well-reasoned dissenting opinion, Justice Goldenhersh recognized that the purpose of the DOT physical is to determine if the driver is medically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle, and that motor carriers such as Hollywood Trucking would be relying upon this determination. According to the dissent, a duty would be imposed because it was reasonably foreseeable that Hollywood Trucking would be harmed if Dr. Watters’ negligence led to the hiring of a medically unqualified driver. Moreover, the burden placed on Dr. Watters in performing the DOT physical with ordinary care was not particularly onerous.
The Hollywood Trucking decision drives home the importance of sending all hires for pre-employment DOT physicals conducted by physicians hired by the motor carrier. In the absence of a relationship between the motor carrier and the physician, the physician owes no duty to the motor carrier to perform the physical with ordinary care and competence.
