Ricks v. Budge, 91 Utah 307, 64 P.2d 208 (Utah 1937)
Ricks v. Budge is a landmark medical malpractice decision that crystallizes the common-law doctrine of physician abandonment.
After undertaking treatment of a patient with an ongoing, serious medical condition, may a physician terminate services for nonpayment without reasonable notice and opportunity for the patient to secure other medical care, and, if so terminated, can the physician be held liable when the patient's worsened condition is proximately caused by the abandonment?
Once a physician–patient relationship is formed, the physician owes a duty to continue necessary care so long as the patient requires attention for the condition undertaken, unless the physician withdraws after giving reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity for the patient to obtain substitute care (or until the patient's condition is stabilized so that withdrawal will not endanger the patient). Abrupt cessation of services in the face of a continuing need constitutes abandonment and a breach of the physician's duty; if the abandonment is a proximate cause of the patient's subsequent injury, the physician is liable for malpractice.
The Utah Supreme Court held that physicians who had undertaken Ricks's care could not lawfully abandon him without reasonable notice and opportunity to obtain other medical assistance while his condition still required treatment. The evidence supported a finding of abandonment and proximate causation of the ensuing harm. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.
Ricks v. Budge is a leading case on physician abandonment. It complements Hurley v. Eddingfield by illustrating the flip side of the no-duty-to-accept principle: once treatment begins, physicians assume a duty not to withdraw in a way that endangers the patient. The case is frequently taught to demonstrate how duty arises from a voluntary undertaking, how breach can take the form of abandonment, and how proximate cause may be inferred from the foreseeable progression of medical conditions left untreated. It also serves as an early common-law analogue to later statutory stabilization mandates and ethical rules, making it a useful springboard for discussions of modern healthcare obligations.