Brzoska v. Olson
668 A.2d 1355 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for battery based on fear of contracting a disease from a healthcare provider requires the plaintiff to prove actual exposure to the disease-causing agent through a medically viable channel of transmission; fear alone, without such exposure, is unreasonable as a matter of law.
Facts:
- Dr. Raymond P. Owens, a dentist, was diagnosed as HIV-positive in March 1989 and continued to practice dentistry.
- By late 1990, Dr. Owens's health had deteriorated; he exhibited open lesions on his body, weakness, and memory loss.
- Dr. Owens performed dental procedures on the 38 plaintiffs, during which their gums sometimes bled.
- In February 1991, Dr. Owens's physician recommended he discontinue his practice, but he did not.
- Dr. Owens died of AIDS on March 1, 1991.
- After his death, the Delaware Division of Public Health notified his patients of his condition and offered free HIV testing.
- Of the 630 former patients of Dr. Owens who were tested, none, including the plaintiffs in this case, tested positive for HIV.
- Some plaintiffs had previously asked Dr. Owens directly about his health, and he allegedly provided deceptive answers, denying he had AIDS.
Procedural Posture:
- A patient first filed a proposed class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking injunctive relief.
- The Court of Chancery dismissed the case, ruling that the claims sounded in tort and that an adequate remedy for damages existed at law.
- The 38 plaintiffs then filed an action in the Delaware Superior Court against the administrator of Dr. Owens's estate, alleging negligence, battery, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
- The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendant, ruling that plaintiffs could not recover for 'fear of AIDS' in the absence of an underlying physical injury.
- The plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of their battery and misrepresentation claims to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
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 performance of ordinary, consented-to dental procedures by an HIV-infected dentist constitute an offensive touching sufficient to sustain a battery claim where the patients have not been actually exposed to the HIV virus?
Opinions:
Majority - Walsh, Justice
No. The performance of ordinary dental procedures by an HIV-infected dentist does not constitute an offensive touching for purposes of battery without actual exposure to the HIV virus. The tort of battery requires contact that is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity. In the context of a 'fear of disease' claim, the reasonableness of a plaintiff's fear is measured by whether there was actual exposure to a disease-causing agent. Without a channel for infection, the risk of HIV transmission is so remote that any fear of contracting AIDS is per se unreasonable. Because the plaintiffs failed to present any evidence of actual exposure—such as Dr. Owens's blood coming into contact with a wound on a patient—their battery claim fails as a matter of law. However, for those plaintiffs to whom Dr. Owens affirmatively misrepresented his health status, a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation may proceed for economic damages, such as the costs of private HIV testing.
Concurring in part and dissenting - Duffy, Justice (Retired)
Yes. A reasonable jury could find the contact was offensive, and summary judgment is inappropriate. The majority incorrectly characterizes this as a case of mere 'AIDS-phobia' when there is abundant evidence that the plaintiffs' fears were reasonable. This evidence includes Dr. Owens's knowledge of his HIV status, his deteriorating health, his open lesions, the fact that he cut himself while working on a patient, and his own physician's advice to stop practicing. The State's own aggressive public health response demonstrates the concern was reasonable. The majority creates a special 'passage of fluids' requirement for offensiveness in this AIDS case that is not a standard element of battery law, and the issue of reasonableness should have been decided by a jury, not by the court as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'actual exposure' rule in Delaware for tort claims based on fear of contracting a disease. By holding that fear without a scientifically plausible channel of infection is per se unreasonable, the court significantly limited potential liability for individuals and healthcare providers with HIV/AIDS. This decision aligns Delaware with the majority of jurisdictions that require objective proof of exposure to prevent a wave of litigation based on subjective fear or public misinformation ('AIDS phobia'). However, the court's allowance of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim for economic damages carves out a separate, albeit narrow, avenue for recovery when a provider actively deceives a patient about their health.
Unlock the full brief for Brzoska v. Olson