Berman v. Laboratory Corp. of America
268 P.3d 68, 2011 OK 106 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The litigation privilege, which protects communications made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, does not shield a laboratory from a negligence claim based on its conduct in incorrectly performing a DNA test. A DNA testing laboratory owes a duty of care to the individuals whose parental rights are being determined to perform such tests accurately.
Facts:
- Sheila Yvonne Berman sought to establish that Herbert White, Jr. was the father of her child through a Department of Human Services (DHS) administrative action.
- DHS arranged for Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) to conduct a DNA paternity test.
- LabCorp performed two tests, both of which reported that White was not the father of Berman's child.
- Berman alleged that for the first test, LabCorp reported an incorrect identification number for White, and for the second test, it used the correct number but re-tested the same, incorrect male DNA sample.
- After the DHS proceeding, Berman independently submitted a DNA sample from White to a different laboratory.
- Testing by the second lab showed that the sample provided was from the father of Berman's child.
- A subsequent court-ordered paternity test confirmed that White was, in fact, the biological father of Berman's child.
Procedural Posture:
- Sheila Berman sued Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) for negligence in the District Court of Oklahoma County, a trial court.
- LabCorp filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing its actions were protected by the absolute litigation privilege.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of LabCorp.
- Berman, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for LabCorp, the appellee.
- Berman petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 the statutory litigation privilege, which protects communications made in a quasi-judicial proceeding, bar a negligence claim against a DNA testing laboratory for its conduct in erroneously testing the wrong DNA sample?
Opinions:
Majority - Watt, Justice
No. The statutory litigation privilege does not bar a negligence claim against a DNA testing laboratory for its conduct in erroneously testing the wrong DNA sample. The court reasoned that the litigation privilege is designed to protect communications made in a legal proceeding from defamation claims, not to shield a party from liability for negligent conduct. Berman's claim was not based on the communicative act of LabCorp reporting the results, but on the underlying professional malpractice of performing the test on the wrong DNA sample. The privilege cannot be invoked when the claim is based on negligent conduct rather than the 'same factual underpinnings' as a potential defamation claim. Furthermore, the court held for the first time that a DNA testing lab owes a duty of care to a parent seeking to establish paternity, given the foreseeable risk of harm and the profound importance of accurate DNA evidence in the legal system.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the litigation privilege in Oklahoma, confining its application to claims arising from the communicative act itself, such as defamation. It prevents the privilege from being expanded to immunize professionals for underlying negligence in the work they perform to generate evidence for litigation. The ruling establishes a new precedent by recognizing a specific duty of care owed by forensic laboratories to parties in a legal proceeding who rely on their accuracy. This holding strengthens protections for litigants and increases the accountability of expert service providers whose work can be dispositive in legal disputes.
