Hedgepeth v. Whitman Walker Clinic
980 A.2d 1229 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must have been within the 'zone of physical danger' created by the defendant's negligence, causing fear for one's own safety. This rule applies even to direct victims of negligence, such as a patient who receives a negligent misdiagnosis that does not result in physically harmful treatment.
Facts:
- In December 2000, Terry Hedgepeth went to the Whitman Walker Clinic (WWC) for an HIV test after learning his girlfriend was HIV-positive.
- A blood test was administered and sent to a lab, which returned a 'non-reactive' result, meaning Hedgepeth was not HIV-positive.
- Due to a series of clerical errors at WWC, staff misinterpreted the negative lab report and created a file incorrectly stating Hedgepeth was HIV-positive.
- A WWC doctor, Dr. Mary Fanning, subsequently misinformed Hedgepeth that he was HIV-positive.
- Hedgepeth believed he was HIV-positive for five years, during which he suffered severe depression, was twice committed to psychiatric wards, and engaged in destructive behaviors.
- Hedgepeth was never prescribed nor did he take any HIV medications as a result of the misdiagnosis.
- In mid-2005, a blood test at a different clinic confirmed that Hedgepeth was, and always had been, HIV-negative.
Procedural Posture:
- Terry Hedgepeth filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (trial court) against Whitman Walker Clinic for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Whitman Walker Clinic filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Hedgepeth's claim was legally barred because he was never in the 'zone of physical danger.'
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Whitman Walker Clinic and dismissed Hedgepeth's complaint.
- Hedgepeth (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a plaintiff recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by a negligent misdiagnosis when the plaintiff was never within the 'zone of physical danger'?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A plaintiff cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress unless they were within the zone of physical danger and feared for their own safety. The court is bound by its own en banc precedent from Williams v. Baker, which established the 'zone of physical danger' test as the sole means for assessing such claims in the District of Columbia. This rule has been strictly applied to both bystanders and direct victims of negligence. Although Hedgepeth suffered genuine and severe emotional distress, the negligent misdiagnosis did not place him in physical danger, as he did not undergo any physically harmful medical treatment as a result. Therefore, his claim is barred as a matter of law.
Concurring - Ruiz, J.
No. The author agrees that binding precedent compels the court to affirm the dismissal of the claim. However, this case demonstrates the need for the full court to reconsider the strict applicability of the 'zone of physical danger' requirement. In cases involving a direct doctor-patient relationship where a negligent misdiagnosis foreseeably causes severe emotional distress, the rule's original policy justifications—preventing fraudulent or trivial claims—are not served. Other jurisdictions have recognized exceptions for direct victims or situations with an 'especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress,' and the court should consider whether to evolve its common law to address such compelling circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the rigid application of the 'zone of physical danger' test for all NIED claims in D.C., refusing to create a common law exception for medical misdiagnosis cases. The case highlights the significant barrier this strict test creates for plaintiffs who suffer legitimate, severe emotional harm without a corresponding, contemporaneous threat of physical injury. The strong concurring opinion acts as a direct appeal to the full court (en banc) to revisit the doctrine, suggesting that its application to direct victims of professional negligence, like patients, may be unjust and out of step with legal developments in other jurisdictions.
