Pate v. Threlkel
661 So.2d 278, 1995 WL 424171 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician's duty to warn a patient of the genetically transferable nature of a condition extends to the patient's readily identifiable third-party beneficiaries, such as children, who may bring a malpractice claim despite a lack of privity. This duty is satisfied by warning the patient directly.
Facts:
- In March 1987, physicians treated Marianne New for medullary thyroid carcinoma.
- Medullary thyroid carcinoma is a genetically transferable disease.
- The physicians allegedly knew or should have known of the condition's genetic nature.
- The physicians did not inform Marianne New that her condition was hereditary or advise her that her children should be tested for it.
- In 1990, Heidi Pate, New's adult daughter, was diagnosed with advanced medullary thyroid carcinoma.
- Pate alleged that had her mother been warned in 1987, she would have undergone testing at that time, which would have led to preventative treatment and a likely cure.
Procedural Posture:
- Heidi Pate and her husband filed a medical malpractice complaint against the physicians who treated her mother, Marianne New, in a Florida trial court.
- The physicians (respondents) filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, arguing they owed no duty to Pate, who was not their patient.
- The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the Pates' complaint with prejudice.
- The Pates (appellants) appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal but certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.
- The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction to review the certified question.
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’s duty of care extend to the child of a patient, creating liability for failing to warn the patient about the genetically transferable nature of the patient’s condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Wells, Justice
Yes, a physician’s duty of care extends to the readily identifiable children of a patient when the physician must warn the patient of the genetic nature of a disease. While privity (a direct physician-patient relationship) is generally required for a malpractice claim, the court held that lack of privity does not foreclose liability where a duty of care is otherwise established for the benefit of a third party. When the prevailing standard of care requires a physician to warn a patient about a genetic disease, that duty is for the benefit of both the patient and their children, who fall within a 'foreseeable zone of risk.' The physician's duty is discharged by warning the patient; there is no requirement to directly contact the patient's family members.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of medical malpractice liability in Florida by extending a physician's duty of care beyond the immediate patient to certain identifiable third parties. It abrogates the strict privity requirement in the context of genetically transferable diseases, applying a 'foreseeable zone of risk' analysis to include close relatives. The ruling carefully balances this expanded duty with patient confidentiality by clarifying that the physician's obligation is fulfilled simply by warning the patient. This case established an important precedent for the duties associated with genetic counseling and professional responsibility in an era of advancing medical genetics.
