Seebold v. Prison Health Services, Inc.
618 Pa. 632, 57 A.3d 1232 (2012)
Rule of Law:
A physician's common law duty regarding a patient with a communicable disease is limited to advising the patient on how to prevent its spread; this duty does not extend to directly warning or taking affirmative protective measures for foreseeable third-party non-patients.
Facts:
- Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS) was under contract to provide medical services to inmates at the State Correctional Institution at Muncy.
- Michelle Seebold worked as a corrections officer at the same prison.
- Seebold's duties included performing strip searches on female inmates before and after they received visitors.
- Approximately twelve inmates were infected with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a contagious bacterial infection.
- PHS medical staff characterized the skin lesions of these inmates as 'spider bites.'
- As a result of her close contact with inmates during searches, Seebold became infected with MRSA.
Procedural Posture:
- Michelle Seebold filed a negligence lawsuit against Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS) in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County (trial court).
- PHS filed preliminary objections, arguing it owed no duty of care to Seebold, a non-patient.
- The trial court sustained PHS's preliminary objections and dismissed Seebold's complaint.
- Seebold, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court).
- The Superior Court vacated the trial court's order, finding Seebold had stated a valid cause of action, and remanded the case.
- PHS, as appellant, petitioned for and was granted an allowance of appeal by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (highest 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 treats prison inmates have a common law duty to warn non-patient corrections officers about an inmate's communicable disease to protect the officers from infection?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Saylor
No. A physician who treats prison inmates does not have a common law duty to warn non-patient corrections officers about an inmate's communicable disease. The court distinguished this case from precedent like DiMarco v. Lynch Homes, which established a physician's duty to properly advise their patient on preventing the spread of a contagious disease, not a duty to directly warn third parties. The court reasoned that creating such a duty would require physicians to step outside the confidential physician-patient relationship, implicating serious policy concerns regarding patient privacy, prison security, and the practical burdens of identifying and warning all at-risk individuals. Citing its own precedent cautioning against judicial expansion of liability for healthcare providers, the court concluded that imposing this new, affirmative duty on physicians involves complex social policy trade-offs that are better left to the Legislature.
Dissenting - Justice McCaffery
Yes. A physician does owe a duty of care to a foreseeable third party in this context. The dissent argued that the majority misconstrued the core issue, which was the physicians' duty to properly diagnose MRSA in the first place, with the failure to warn being a consequence of that breach. Under the rule from DiMarco, a physician's duty extends to identifiable third parties who are likely to suffer harm if the physician negligently handles an infectious disease case. Seebold, as a corrections officer conducting strip searches, was clearly within the 'foreseeable orbit of risk of harm.' The dissent concluded that the public interest in preventing the spread of infectious disease and the principles of Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts both support imposing a duty on the physicians to protect foreseeable victims like Seebold.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the traditional boundaries of the physician-patient relationship and the judiciary's reluctance to expand medical malpractice liability to third parties. It strictly cabins prior precedent, holding that a physician’s duty regarding communicable diseases is discharged by properly advising the patient, not by directly warning others. The ruling signals that courts will defer to the legislature in creating new affirmative duties that involve complex policy trade-offs, such as balancing public safety against patient confidentiality. This makes it substantially more difficult for non-patients to bring negligence claims against healthcare providers, limiting such actions to very narrow exceptions like the duty to warn a specific victim of a patient's direct and imminent threat.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Seebold v. Prison Health Services, Inc. (2012)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"