DiMarco v. Lynch Homes-Chester County, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
559 A.2d 530, 384 Pa. Super. 463 (1989)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A physician owes a duty of reasonable care to an identifiable third party, not in a physician-patient relationship, who is harmed as a result of relying on the physician's negligent advice to a patient concerning the prevention of a communicable disease.

Facts:

On June 18, 1985, Janet Viscichini, a phlebotomist, was accidentally punctured by a needle used on a patient known to carry diseases, including hepatitis.
Viscichini consulted with her physicians, Drs. Guinta and Alwine, who knew her and her sexual partner, Joseph R. DiMarco, personally.
The physicians advised Viscichini that if she did not develop hepatitis within six weeks, she would not contract the disease, and that she should refrain from sexual relations during this period.
After eight weeks passed without symptoms, Viscichini resumed sexual relations with DiMarco, relying on the physicians' advice.
The correct medical advice would have been to refrain from sexual relations for six months, not six weeks.
In September 1985, Viscichini was diagnosed with Hepatitis B.
In December 1985, DiMarco was also diagnosed with Hepatitis B.

Procedural Posture:

Joseph R. DiMarco filed a complaint against physicians Leonard C. Guinta and Lawrence K. Alwine in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court).
The physicians filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing the complaint failed to state a valid legal claim.
The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed DiMarco's complaint.
DiMarco (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate 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 physician owe a duty of reasonable care to a non-patient who contracts a communicable disease from the physician's patient, where the physician negligently advised the patient on the period of contagion and the non-patient foreseeably relied on that advice?

Opinions:

Majority - Montemuro, J.

Yes, a physician owes a duty of reasonable care to a non-patient under these circumstances. Although malpractice liability generally arises only from a direct physician-patient relationship, an exception exists under the principles of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A. Here, the physicians undertook to provide services (medical advice) to their patient, Viscichini, which they should have recognized were necessary for the protection of a third person, her known sexual partner DiMarco. Because this case involves a communicable disease, public policy considerations regarding public health are paramount. Since DiMarco alleged that he was aware of and relied upon the physicians' negligent advice, which led to his harm, he has stated a valid cause of action against the physicians despite the absence of a direct physician-patient relationship.

Analysis:

This decision significantly expands the scope of a physician's duty in Pennsylvania, extending it beyond the patient to identifiable third parties in the specific context of communicable diseases. By applying Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court created a precedent for non-patient liability based on reliance. This ruling imposes a greater responsibility on physicians to provide accurate advice about contagion, recognizing that such information is foreseeably shared with and relied upon by those in close contact with the patient. Future cases may explore the boundaries of this duty, such as whether it extends to less identifiable third parties or situations where the third party's reliance is not as direct.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: DiMarco v. Lynch Homes-Chester County, Inc. (1989)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"