Concierge medicine firms often market themselves as the ultimate solution for peace of mind: expert second opinions, top specialists, and—if you believe the sales pitch—zero malpractice liability for the physicians involved. It sounds great. Too good to be true.

The reality is more complicated. Courts have made it clear that while certain structures and processes can reduce malpractice exposure, they rarely eliminate it. Physicians—and the organizations that recruit them—should be wary of anyone claiming otherwise.

The Legal Foundation: Duty of Care

Every malpractice case boils down to one question: did the physician owe a duty of care? That duty normally arises from a physician–patient relationship. No relationship, no duty, no malpractice liability.

Concierge and second-opinion firms often stop the analysis there, suggesting that because their physicians don’t prescribe medications or physically examine patients, and concierges serve as a third party intermediary, the hospital or physician can’t be sued. But courts have shown that the question isn’t that simple.

Where Physicians Have Been Protected

Many “curbside consult” situations, courts have refused to find a duty.

• In Reynolds v. Decatur Memorial Hospital (Ill. App. Ct. 1996), a neurologist gave advice by phone but never saw or billed the patient. No relationship, no duty.
• In Hill v. Kokosky (Mich. Ct. App. 1990), a doctor’s telephone opinion didn’t create a treatment relationship.
• In Lopez v. Aziz (Tex. App. 1993), an OB/GYN gave limited input to a colleague but had no direct role in care; again, no duty was found.

Cases in New York, South Carolina, and Nebraska reinforce the same principle: informal consultations directed only at another physician do not, by themselves, create malpractice liability.

This is the rule of law that concierge firms seize on. If the second-opinion doctor is clearly operating in a background, advisory role, courts are generally reluctant to impose liability.

The Crack in the Armor: When Advice Drives Care

But the reality is that courts can and do pierce that shield when the advice is decisive.

In Warren v. Dinter (Minn. 2019), a hospitalist refused admission for a patient after discussing the case with a nurse practitioner. The patient later died. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that even without a formal relationship, the physician could owe a duty of care because his decision was foreseeably relied upon.

That’s where liability lurks. When a second-opinion physician’s input is effectively directing patient care—even indirectly—liability risk creeps back in. And no concierge contract language, corporate structure or insulating process can erase that.

Why the “No Liability” Pitch Fails

When a firm tells its recruited team of doctors, “Don’t worry, you’ll never be sued, we take on all the risk,” it’s selling a half-truth.

• Patients can (and usually do) name anyone in a lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ attorneys almost always take a “name them all and sort it out later” approach. Even if the company is the primary target, the physician is not magically invisible.
• Disclaimers don’t eclipse facts. Labeling something as “informational” or “educational” won’t save a doctor if the court finds the advice was treatment in disguise.
• Insurance gaps can be costly. If physicians are told they don’t need malpractice coverage for this work, they may find themselves exposed when reality doesn’t match the circumstances.

In short: concierge or second opinion firms may provide a buffer, but they cannot immunize.

Smarter Structuring, Not Empty Promises

The more responsible way to frame second-opinion work is not to pretend liability doesn’t exist, but to design systems that minimize risk while improving patient care:

• Ensure the treating physician remains clearly in charge.
• Frame consults as advisory, not prescriptive.
• Use disclaimers, but back them up with real operational limits.
• Ensure appropriate malpractice coverage is in place—even if claims are unlikely.
• Use technology that reinforces compliance.

Conclusion

Second opinions are vital. They expand access to care, save lives, reassure patients, and catch errors. But they are not malpractice liability-proof. Courts recognize nuance: most “pure” consults remain shielded, but once advice becomes decisive, liability can follow.

So when a concierge firm promises, “Work with us and there’s no liability,” the right response is healthy skepticism. The law doesn’t deal in absolutes—and neither should they.