Frame v. Kothari
1989 N.J. LEXIS 89, 115 N.J. 638, 560 A.2d 675 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A family member cannot recover for the negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from medical misdiagnosis unless they contemporaneously observe the malpractice, its immediate injurious effect on the patient, and connect the two in a shocking event.
Facts:
- Ten-month-old Arik Frame fell down a thirteen-step stairway.
- His parents, Charles and Donna Frame, took him to a clinic where Dr. Nita Kothari examined him.
- Dr. Kothari diagnosed Arik with a virus, despite a fever and a soft spot on his head, and instructed the parents to check on him every four hours.
- Later that afternoon, the Frames called Dr. Kothari, reporting that their son had vomited and his eyes were "pivoting."
- Dr. Kothari advised them to let Arik sleep for another four hours.
- Four hours after the phone call, the Frames found Arik in a moribund (dying) condition.
- They rushed him to a hospital for emergency surgery, but Arik died several hours later.
- An autopsy revealed the cause of death was an intra-cerebellar hemorrhage due to blunt trauma to the skull.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles and Donna Frame sued Dr. Nita Kothari and Health Care Plan of New Jersey in the Law Division (the trial court).
- A jury returned a verdict for the Frames, awarding damages for both wrongful death and their claims of emotional distress.
- The defendants appealed to the Appellate Division (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the wrongful-death award but reversed the awards for emotional distress.
- The Frames, as appellants, were granted certification to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Jersey (the state's highest 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:
Do parents have a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress when a doctor's medical misdiagnosis of their child leads to the child's death, but they only discover the child's moribund state hours after the negligent diagnostic advice was given?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Pollock
No. Parents cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in a medical misdiagnosis case unless the claim is based on the contemporaneous observation of a shocking event where the malpractice and the resulting injury are closely linked in time. This case does not meet the requirements of the bystander liability test established in Portee v. Jaffee, which requires the plaintiff to observe the death or injury at the scene of the accident. Medical misdiagnosis is an intellectual act, and its tragic consequences often manifest hours or days later, separating the negligent act from the observation of the injury. The four-hour gap between Dr. Kothari's negligent advice and the Frames' discovery of their son's condition breaks the required chain of immediate sensory perception of a shocking event. While a claim might be possible if a family member witnesses the malpractice, observes its effect, and immediately connects the two, those circumstances are not present here.
Concurring - Chief Justice Wilentz and Justice Garibaldi
No. While agreeing with the outcome, the court should not have speculated on or created a potential future cause of action for emotional distress in misdiagnosis cases. The majority's holding that a claim might be possible in an 'appropriate case' is premature. Before expanding medical malpractice liability, courts must conduct a thorough balancing of social interests, weighing the benefits of compensation against societal costs like increased 'defensive medicine,' rising healthcare costs, and doctors abandoning certain specialities. The record in this case is insufficient to make such a significant policy determination, and the court should have awaited a future case to address the issue squarely.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the bystander liability rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in the context of medical malpractice. By emphasizing the need for a 'shocking event' and a contemporaneous link between the negligent act and the observed injury, the court makes it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to recover for NIED in cases of misdiagnosis, where there is typically a time lag. The ruling distinguishes misdiagnosis from traditional accident cases, establishing that the gradual realization of a tragedy does not meet the Portee test's 'observation at the scene' requirement. This creates a high bar for future plaintiffs, likely requiring them to witness the negligent treatment and its immediate, disastrous effects in the same moment to have a viable claim.
Unlock the full brief for Frame v. Kothari