Molloy v. Meier
2004 Minn. LEXIS 268, 2004 WL 1118696, 679 N.W.2d 711 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician's duty of care in the context of genetic testing and diagnosis extends beyond the patient to the patient's biological parents when it is reasonably foreseeable that the parents will rely on such information and be harmed by a breach of that duty.
Facts:
- Kimberly Molloy's young daughter, S.F., was being treated by Dr. Diane Meier for developmental delays.
- Molloy informed Dr. Meier of her half-brother's mental retardation and requested genetic testing for S.F. to determine if her condition was inherited.
- Dr. Meier intended to order tests for chromosomes and Fragile X syndrome, a hereditary condition, but only the chromosome test was actually performed.
- Dr. Meier received the normal chromosome test results and informed S.F.'s parents that the results were negative, without mentioning that the Fragile X test had not been done. Molloy assumed S.F. had tested negative for Fragile X.
- Dr. Reno Backus later told Molloy that S.F.'s condition was not genetic and the risk of her having another child with the same condition was remote.
- Years later, another physician, Dr. Kathryn Green, treated S.F. but assumed, based on the file, that Fragile X testing had already been performed with negative results.
- Molloy subsequently remarried and gave birth to a son, M.M., who exhibited the same developmental delays as S.F.
- M.M. was tested and diagnosed with Fragile X syndrome, which led to the discovery that S.F. and Molloy herself were also carriers of the genetic disorder.
- Molloy asserted that if she had been correctly informed of S.F.'s diagnosis, she would have undergone a tubal ligation and would not have conceived M.M.
Procedural Posture:
- Kimberly Molloy and her husband sued Drs. Meier, Backus, and Green in a Minnesota district court (trial court) for medical malpractice.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Molloy and the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
- The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The district court certified three legal questions to the Minnesota Court of Appeals as 'important and doubtful'.
- The Court of Appeals answered the certified questions in Molloy's favor, upholding the trial court's denial of summary judgment.
- The defendants (appellants) petitioned for, and were granted, review by the Minnesota Supreme 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 who fails to test for and diagnose a genetic disorder in a child owe a legal duty of care to the child's biological parents, who subsequently conceive another child with the same disorder in reliance on the incomplete or inaccurate medical information?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Meyer
Yes, a physician’s duty regarding genetic testing and diagnosis extends beyond the patient to biological parents who foreseeably may be harmed by a breach of that duty. The court reasoned that the risk of harm to the parents was reasonably foreseeable, as physicians should anticipate that parents of childbearing age will rely on genetic diagnoses when making reproductive decisions. Citing precedent like Skillings v. Allen, the court held that a duty can arise where it is obvious that a failure to use due care will cause injury to a third party who relies on the professional's advice. The court also held that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the conception of the second child, M.M., as that was the point at which Molloy's damages accrued. Finally, the court concluded the action was for 'wrongful conception,' not 'wrongful birth,' and thus was not barred by a state statute prohibiting actions claiming a child should have been aborted.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Page
This opinion concurs with the majority's holding that the physicians owed a duty to Molloy and that her claim was not barred by the wrongful birth statute. However, it dissents on the statute of limitations issue. The dissent argues that the majority's decision effectively adopts a 'discovery rule' for medical malpractice cases, which contradicts established precedent set in Fabio v. Bellomo. Under Fabio, the cause of action should have accrued when the physicians' treatment of S.F. terminated, which would have rendered Molloy's lawsuit untimely. The dissent contends that the principle of stare decisis requires the court to follow its prior ruling in Fabio.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of a physician's duty in Minnesota, extending liability for medical malpractice to certain non-patients. By grounding the duty in foreseeability rather than a direct physician-patient relationship, the court opened the door for similar claims in contexts where a professional's negligence foreseeably harms an identifiable third party, particularly in the growing field of genetic medicine. The court's ruling on the statute of limitations also creates a crucial distinction for wrongful conception claims, tying the accrual of the action to the moment of actual damage (conception) rather than the moment of the negligent act (misdiagnosis). This preserves claims where the harm is latent and manifests long after the initial negligence.
