Andreini v. Hultgren
1993 Utah LEXIS 123, 860 P. 2d 916, 222 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract is voidable on the grounds of duress if a party’s assent is induced by an improper threat that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative. This standard, adopted from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 175-176, replaces the older, more vague standard based on overcoming a party's free will.
Facts:
- On May 5, 1987, Eugene R. Andreini underwent knee surgery performed by Dr. R. David Beck at Holy Cross Hospital, with Dr. Bruce Hultgren as the anesthesiologist.
- The day after the surgery, Andreini began experiencing a 'pins and needles' sensation in his hands, which progressed to noticeable atrophy by his discharge on May 19, 1987.
- Dr. Beck suggested to Andreini that the condition was likely due to lying in bed, heredity, or his physical structure.
- On July 2, 1987, another doctor, Dr. Nord, informed Andreini he had suffered a compression paralysis of both hands, and a nurse later suggested this could have resulted from improper strapping during the initial surgery.
- Dr. Beck offered to perform a second, corrective surgery, stating he would ask the hospital to waive its charges.
- On July 9, 1987, after being prepped for the corrective surgery, Andreini was presented with a form releasing Dr. Beck and Holy Cross Hospital from all liability.
- When Andreini refused to sign, Dr. Beck told him over the phone that he would not perform the surgery unless the release was signed.
- Believing the surgery was time-sensitive due to his worsening condition, Andreini signed the release; the subsequent surgery was unsuccessful.
Procedural Posture:
- Eugene R. Andreini filed a complaint in a Utah state district court against Dr. Hultgren, Dr. Beck, and Holy Cross Hospital for medical malpractice.
- Dr. Hultgren moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding Andreini's claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations and, alternatively, by his failure to timely file for prelitigation review.
- Dr. Beck and Holy Cross Hospital also moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding that a release signed by Andreini was valid and not executed under duress.
- Andreini, the plaintiff, appealed both summary judgment orders to the Utah Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party sign a release under duress, rendering it voidable, when their assent is induced by an improper threat from the other party that leaves the victim with no reasonable alternative?
Opinions:
Majority - Zimmerman, Justice
Yes, a release is voidable for duress if assent is induced by an improper threat leaving no reasonable alternative. The court formally adopts the standard for duress set forth in sections 175 and 176 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, abandoning the vague 'free will' test from prior case law. A threat is improper under § 176(2)(b) if the exchange is on unfair terms and its effectiveness is increased by prior unfair dealing. A jury could find that Dr. Beck engaged in unfair dealing by promising full recovery and waiting until Andreini was prepped for time-sensitive surgery to demand the release. Furthermore, a jury could find Andreini had no reasonable alternative, given evidence that his condition was progressively worsening and that immediate surgery was medically necessary to prevent irreversible damage. The trial court's summary judgments are reversed, as material questions of fact exist regarding both the duress claim and the timeliness of the initial malpractice claim.
Concurring - Stewart, Justice
This opinion concurs in the judgment but writes to clarify a secondary procedural point. While the majority correctly states that the administrative Division could deny prelitigation review if a plaintiff fails to meet the sixty-day filing requirement, a plaintiff may cure this noncompliance. A plaintiff can file a new notice of intent to commence action and then file a request for prelitigation review within sixty days of the new notice, provided it is still within the overall statute of limitations period.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant clarification of contract law in Utah by formally adopting the modern, objective standard for economic duress from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. By replacing the subjective 'overcoming free will' test with a two-part analysis of 'improper threat' and 'no reasonable alternative,' the court provides a more concrete and predictable framework for analyzing duress claims. The ruling lowers the bar for victims of unfair bargaining tactics, particularly in situations with inherent power imbalances, such as the doctor-patient relationship. This precedent will likely influence future cases involving last-minute demands, time-sensitive circumstances, and bad-faith negotiations.
