> If a doctor tells a prospective patient that he will only treat his or

> her illness for a payment of $100 in a situation where the doctor is

> legally required to treat all patients without cost and the patient pays

> the $100 to secure the procedure, can the patient recover on economic

> duress grounds?

>

I think I am going to need some more facts. Has the patient relied upon

this legal entitlement so that he now has no reasonable alternative open

to him? If there is another doctor next door from whom the patient could

have obtained for free the treatement, but he has paid despite the

presence of a reasonable alternative, tough luck. In that case there is no

threat of harm (although wrongful).

To whom is the duty of the doctor owed? If to the specific persons who

show up demanding treatment (ie the patients have a right), then there is

a claim for breach of statutory duty and the patient has a claim for

damages. If only owed to society in general, and all the doctor has done

is threaten to withhold a benefit, no claim at all by the patient.

(If you want authority for the proposition on duress, the best I can do is

the threats to breach contracts cases.)

R

--

Robert Stevens

Professor of Commercial Law

University College London