R.J. and P.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., et al.
652 So. 2d 360 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida's impact rule, a plaintiff cannot recover damages for purely emotional distress resulting from a negligent medical misdiagnosis unless that misdiagnosis proximately causes a subsequent physical injury, such as bodily harm from unnecessary and invasive medical treatment.
Facts:
- On March 19, 1989, agents of Humana of Florida, Inc. (Humana) drew blood from R.J. for testing.
- Humana sent the blood sample to Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. (Smithkline) for analysis.
- On March 30, 1989, Humana informed R.J. that the results of the blood test indicated he was HIV positive.
- Based on this diagnosis, Humana referred R.J. to Dr. William Robbins for ongoing medical care and treatment.
- For approximately nineteen months, R.J. believed he was infected with the HIV virus.
- In November 1990, R.J. requested and underwent a second test, which revealed he was not, in fact, infected with the HIV virus.
Procedural Posture:
- R.J. filed a negligence lawsuit against Humana of Florida, Inc., Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc., and Dr. William Robbins in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court dismissed R.J.'s complaint with prejudice, ruling that it failed to state a cause of action because it did not satisfy the requirements of Florida's impact rule.
- R.J., as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal but certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida regarding the applicability of the impact rule to negligent HIV diagnoses.
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 Florida's impact rule bar a claim for purely emotional distress damages resulting from a negligent medical misdiagnosis when there is no resulting physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Overton, J.
Yes, the impact rule applies to a claim for damages from a negligent HIV diagnosis, barring recovery for purely emotional distress without a resulting physical injury. The court reaffirmed the vitality of the impact rule, which requires that emotional distress must flow from physical injuries sustained in an impact to be compensable. The court declined to abolish the rule or create a special exception for negligent HIV diagnoses, reasoning that doing so would open the floodgates to speculative claims for any medical misdiagnosis. However, the court clarified that while the initial blood draw does not constitute a sufficient impact, a physical injury resulting from the misdiagnosis would satisfy the rule. If the erroneous diagnosis led to unnecessary and harmful medical treatment, such as invasive procedures or the prescription of caustic medications like AZT that caused bodily injury, the plaintiff would have a valid claim for both the physical injury and the attendant emotional distress.
Concurring - Kogan, J.
Yes, but the majority's application of the rule effectively transforms it. While concurring in the result, Justice Kogan argued that the majority's opinion blurs the critical distinction between a contemporaneous 'impact' and a subsequent 'injury.' The traditional impact rule required that the negligent act inflict an immediate physical impact. By allowing a claim based on a later physical injury from medical treatment that occurred months after the negligent act (the test), the court is not truly applying the classic impact rule. Instead, it is moving Florida's jurisprudence toward the 'actual-injury' rule adopted by most other states, which dispenses with the immediate impact requirement but still demands a physical injury for recovery of emotional distress damages. Justice Kogan suggested the court is preserving the impact rule in name only while effectively abrogating it in practice.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Florida's minority position of adherence to the impact rule but significantly clarifies its application in medical misdiagnosis cases. By defining subsequent harmful medical treatment as a potential source of the required physical injury, the court created a viable, albeit narrow, path for recovery where none was clear before. The ruling balances the court's policy goal of limiting purely emotional distress claims with the recognition that a misdiagnosis can lead to tangible, physical harm. This framework prevents recovery for the fear and anxiety of a wrong diagnosis alone but allows compensation when that negligence manifests in concrete bodily injury from unnecessary treatment, shaping the litigation strategy for future medical malpractice claims involving misdiagnoses.
Unlock the full brief for R.J. and P.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., et al.