Hawkins v. Pizarro
713 So. 2d 1036, 1998 WL 299414 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician's duty of care to a third party, arising from the treatment of a patient, extends only to third parties who are known to the physician and identifiable at the time of the negligent act.
Facts:
- In May 1994, Dr. George R. Pizzaro examined Ellen Shaw and took a blood sample for a hepatitis C test.
- The laboratory result was positive for hepatitis C, but Pizzaro's office incorrectly informed Shaw that her test was negative.
- Several months later, Shaw met James E. Hawkins.
- Shaw and Hawkins subsequently married.
- In May 1995, as part of a pre-conception check-up, Shaw was tested again for hepatitis C by her gynecologist, and the test came back positive.
- In August 1995, Shaw contacted Pizzaro, who reviewed the original 1994 test and confirmed it had been positive.
- Shortly thereafter, James Hawkins also tested positive for hepatitis C.
Procedural Posture:
- James E. Hawkins and Ellen Shaw filed a medical negligence action against Dr. George R. Pizzaro in a Florida trial court.
- Pizzaro filed a motion for summary judgment against Hawkins.
- The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Pizzaro.
- Hawkins (appellant) appealed the trial court's entry of summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, with Pizzaro as the appellee.
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 care to a non-patient who contracts a contagious disease from the physician's patient, when the non-patient was unknown and unidentified to the physician at the time of the negligent diagnosis?
Opinions:
Majority - Cope, Judge
No. A physician’s duty of care does not extend to a third party who was unknown and unidentified to the physician at the time of the negligent act. The court relied on the precedent set in Pate v. Threlkel, which established that a physician's duty runs to a third party only when the standard of care is for the benefit of 'certain identified third parties and the physician knows of the existence of those third parties.' Although it was foreseeable that Shaw might transmit the disease to a future sexual partner, Hawkins was not known or identified to Dr. Pizzaro at the time of the misdiagnosis; in fact, Shaw had not even met Hawkins yet. Therefore, Hawkins did not meet the 'identified' and 'known' third-party requirement, and no duty of care was owed to him.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and strictly applies the 'identifiable victim' doctrine for third-party medical malpractice claims in Florida. It clarifies that general foreseeability of harm to a class of individuals (e.g., future partners) is insufficient to create a legal duty of care. The ruling establishes a bright-line rule requiring that the third party be specifically known and identified to the physician, thereby limiting the scope of physician liability to a determinate class of people and preventing exposure to potentially limitless claims from future, unknown individuals.
Unlock the full brief for Hawkins v. Pizarro