Learn The Law and Represent Yourself in Court
Share
-
Pa Supreme Court: Physicians Can Be Sued For Emotional Distress
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled a physician can be sued for causing a patient emotional distress, even when no medical negligence, physical contact or malpractice exists. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by a woman who claims her physician did not prepare her for the shock of the severe deformities her infant was born with.
In March of 2003 Jeanelle Toney went to radiologist Maheep Goyal, MD, for a pelvic ultrasound. Dr. Goyal informed her that the results were normal and did not indicate any fetal abnormalities in her unborn child, according to her lawsuit. Rather, Toney was advised that her unborn child was normal and healthy. She gave birth in July delivering a boy who was profoundly deformed. He lacked arms below the elbows and legs below the knee joints, and an incompletely developed tongue and under-sized lower jaw, among other anomalies. Toney was awake and conscious during the vaginal delivery. As a result, she observed her son’s abnormalities first hand immediately following birth.
Toney sued Goyal and Chester County Hospital in 2005 for negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging that Dr. Goyal should have prepared her for the shock of witnessing the birth. Toney said she experiences ongoing grief, rage, nausea, nightmares, hysteria and insomnia. The lawsuit however did not include a medical negligence claim and there was not allegation that the medical care given by Goyal was substandard in any way. There was not treatment which could have changed the outcome of the birth.
The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 313 guides the court in evaluating whether a legal claim for Emotional Distress is valid:
Emotional Distress Unintended
(1) If the actor unintentionally causes emotional distress to another, he is subject to liability to the
other for resulting illness or bodily harm if the actor:
(a) should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing the distress,
otherwise than by knowledge of the harm or peril of a third person, and
(b) from facts known to him should have realized that the distress, if it were caused, might result in
illness or bodily harm.
To state a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress the plaintiff must demonstrate that harm to her is foreseeable and that she suffered a physical injury as a result of the defendant’s negligence.
Arguing that Toney failed to prove she was subjected to a physical injury, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. The trial court agreed and granted the defendants motion to dismiss and the plaintiff appealed. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the decision and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. On December 22, 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision reversing the lower court. The six justices were evenly split. One justice recused herself. Because of the division, the superior court’s decision was upheld.
The appellate court found:
¶ 20 In light of the pleadings, it cannot be rationally argued that the defendants did not owe a duty of care directly to Toney. It is also entirely foreseeable that under the circumstances as alleged, Toney would suffer traumatic emotional distress during the birth of her son. As such, we find the elements of negligence and foreseeability to have been adequately pled.
¶ 21 Next, we turn to the requirement of physical injury, i.e., compensable damage. Appellees argue that even pursuant to the fiduciary duty basis, Toney must plead and prove that she was subjected to a physical impact in order to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress. In contrast, Toney contends that a physical impact is not necessary to recover damages for emotional distress when there has been a breach of a fiduciary duty. Toney argues that only physical injury or illness resulting from the emotional distress is required, not actual physical contact. All parties to this appeal have focused their attention on the issue of whether physical
impact is required if there has been a breach of fiduciary duty.¶ 24 Here, the complaint filed by Toney enumerates the physical harm suffered by Toney as a result of the traumatic delivery of her child: “shock and severe emotional distress”, Complaint, at ¶¶ 53-54; “severe shock, nervous shock, grief, rage, humiliation, emotional pain, mental anguish, emotional trauma, and emotional distress”, at ¶ 65; “continued nausea and headaches, insomnia, depression, nightmares, flashbacks, repeated hysterical attacks, stress, hysteria, nervousness, sleeplessness, nightmares, and anxiety”, at¶ 67; “disabled in the past and to continue to be disabled in the future from performing her usual duties, occupations, avocations, and vocations, with a consequent loss of earnings and future earnings capacity”, at ¶ 68; and “psychological treatment and care”, at ¶ 69. Toney v. Chester County Hospital, et al., 2008 Pa.Super. 268 (Pa.Super. 11/12/2008)
Read the appellate decision and the Supreme Court opinion below:
Related Posts
- Utah Supreme Court Rules Term “Minor Child” Includes Fetus
- Nevada Supreme Court Issues important Evidence Rulings In Hepatitis C Cases
- Teva Wins HUGE In Propofol Case Credit U.S. Supreme Court
- Nevada Supreme Court To Make Crucial Hepatitis Case Evidence Determination
- CA Physicians Vow To Appeal Medicare Opt Out To Supreme Court
