I don't think the title here needs to be changed significantly, I was just pointing out that it implies something different from the article contents. The titl

I don't think the title here needs to be changed significantly, I was just pointing out that it implies something different from the article contents. The title paints the court's decision as if it's about treatment while the decision is actually about assessment. Going by the title one could think anyone could sue a doctor despite never interacting with them, while the article explains that this decision allows you to sue if you are actively refused treatment based on a doctor's assessment (the implication being that the doctor was wrong when they refused to admit/treat you). Perhaps a better title would be something like "Minnesota court decision means doctors can be sued by patients they refuse to treat".