Citing references

United States, 946 F. 2d 1467, 1470 (9th Cir.1991)(explaining that under Washington law, duty may be extended beyond doctor-patient relationship provided that examinee is foreseeably endangered by failure to make known to examinee abnormal findings); Hoover v.

]" [6] 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir.1991).

F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1991).

Co., 92 F.3d 274 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1115 , 117 S.Ct. 956 , 136 L.Ed.2d 843 (1997); Daly, 946 F.2d 1467 ; and Betesh v. United States, 400 F.Supp. 238 (D.D.C.1974)).

United States, 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1991). Like Eelbode, Daly involved a pre-employment physical examination. 946 F.2d at 1468 .

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir. 1991)).

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1469 (9th Cir. 1991). Including these professionals as health care providers under the statute supports a legislative intent “to impose liability beyond the context of a physician-patient relationship.” Id. at 1469 .

United States, 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir.1991); Cokas v. Perkins, 252 F.Supp. 563 (D.C. 1966); Davidson v. Gaillard, 584 So.2d 71 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991); Carter v. Shirley, 21 Mass.App. 503 , 488 N.E.2d 16 (App.Ct. 1986); Naccarato v.

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1469 (9th Cir. 1991) (discussing RCW 7.70.040-.050). 16 RCW 7.70.030(3), .050; Daly, 946 F.2d at 1469 . 17 (Emphasis added.) 18 RCW 7.70.040 provides: “The following shall be necessary elements of proof that injury

United States, 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir.1991); Dornak v. Lafayette General Hospital, 399 So.2d 168, 170 (La.1981)), with employers which violated their own documented disclosure policy (Betesh v.

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1470 (9th Cir.1991) (holding, under Washington law, that even in the absence a doctor-patient relationship, a physician who conducted a pre-employment physical owed a duty to inform the examinee of identified abnormalities); Green

United States (9th Cir. 1991), 946 F.2d 1467 ; Cleghorn v. Hess (1993), 109 Nev. 544 , 853 P.2d 1260 , and Baer v. Regents of Univ. of California (N.M.App. 1994), 118 N.M. 685 , 884 P.2d 841 .

United States, 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir.1991). The Court disagrees, as both cases are distinguishable from the instant factual scenario.

United States, 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir.1991); Dornak v. Lafayette General Hospital, 399 So.2d 168, 170 (La.1981)), with employers which violated their own documented disclosure policy (Betesh v.

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1469 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court reviews de novo the district court’s interpretations of state law and reviews its findings of fact for clear error. Id.

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1468 (9th Cir.1991) (interpreting Washington law); see also Betesh, 400 F.Supp. at 245-47 (holding as a matter of Maryland law that employer-retained radiologists who observed abnormalities owed a duty of care and breached it by failing

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1471 (9th Cir.1991) (stating § 457 applies to successive malpractice when subsequent treatment undertaken to mitigate harm inflicted by prior physician); Ri ne v.

U.S., 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir.1991) (finding progression of the disease was foreseeable from the misdiagnosis despite similar negligent conduct from subsequent doctors); Deutsch v.

U.S., 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir.1991) (interpreting Washington law); Betesh v. United States, 400 F.Supp. 238 (D.D.C.1974) (interpreting Maryland law). But see Beaman v. Helton, 573 So.2d 776 (Miss.1990).

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1471-72 (9th Cir.1991); Carter v. Shirley, 21 Mass.App.Ct. 503 , 488 N.E.2d 16, 20 (1986); Lindquist v. Dengel, 92 Wash.2d 257 , 595 P.2d 934, 937 (1979); Rine ex rel. Rine v.

United States (1991), 946 F.2d 1467 (holding, in the context of a pre-employment physical, that 14 an examining physician under Washington law has a duty to inform those examined, in the absence of a doctor patient relationship, of abnormal test results)

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1468-71 (9th Cir.1991) (“We find that a person is foreseeably endangered when examining physicians fail to make known abnormal findings.”) and Jack W.

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1471 (9th Cir.1991) (stating § 457 applies to sue-cessive malpractice when subsequent treatment is undertaken to mitigate harm inflicted by prior physician); Rine v.

United States, 946 F.2d 1467, 1469 (9th Cir.1991). Under California law, a landowner must act reasonably in the management of its property in view of the probability of injury to others on the land. Rowland v. Christian, 443 P.2d 561, 568 (Cal.1968).

U.S., 946 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1991) (interpreting Washington law); Betesh v. United States, 400 F.Supp. 238 (D.D.C. 1974) (interpreting Maryland law). But see Beaman v. Helton, 573 So.2d 776 (Miss. 1990).