Toney v. Chester County Hospital
614 Pa. 98, 36 A.3d 83 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) can exist based on a pre-existing special relationship where it is foreseeable that a breach of duty would result in severe emotional distress, and such a claim does not require the plaintiff to have suffered a physical impact.
Facts:
- Jeanelle Antionette Toney was a patient of the Defendants for prenatal care.
- On March 3, 2003, Defendants performed a pelvic ultrasound study on Toney and her unborn child.
- Defendants interpreted the ultrasound and reported the results to Toney as normal.
- On July 3, 2003, Toney gave birth to a son who had profound physical abnormalities, including the absence of all four extremities below the elbow or knee.
- Toney was conscious during the birth and was shocked by her son's unexpected deformities.
- Toney alleged that the Defendants' negligent misinterpretation of the ultrasound prevented her from preparing for the shock of witnessing her son's birth.
- Toney did not allege that the Defendants' negligence caused or contributed to the child's physical deformities.
- As a result of the shock, Toney claimed to suffer severe emotional distress which manifested in physical symptoms such as nausea, headaches, insomnia, and depression.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeanelle Toney filed a medical malpractice action against the Defendants in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court of first instance).
- Defendants filed preliminary objections, arguing Toney failed to state a legally sufficient claim for NIED.
- The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed Toney's complaint with prejudice.
- Toney (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The Defendants (appellants) filed petitions for allowance of appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (the state's highest court), which were granted.
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 cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) exist where emotional distress results from the negligent breach of a duty arising from a special relationship, absent a physical impact or injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Baer, J. (Opinion in Support of Affirmance)
Yes. A cause of action for NIED may exist based on a special relationship, even without physical impact. This Court's jurisprudence on NIED has evolved from the rigid 'impact rule' to include 'zone of danger' and 'bystander' liability. It is now appropriate to recognize a limited cause of action for NIED in cases involving a special relationship where it is foreseeable that a breach of duty would cause emotional harm so extreme that a reasonable person could not be expected to endure it. The physical impact requirement is a flawed and often arbitrary tool for ensuring the genuineness of a claim. In cases involving special relationships, such as the doctor-patient relationship in the sensitive field of obstetrics, the foreseeability of severe emotional harm provides a sufficient check on liability, replacing the need for a physical impact. The relationship between an obstetrician and an expectant mother encompasses an implied duty to care for the patient's emotional well-being, and a breach of that duty, like misinterpreting an ultrasound, can foreseeably cause the type of severe emotional distress alleged here.
Concurring - Todd, J.
Yes. This opinion joins Justice Baer's opinion in full. Dispensing with the impact rule trusts juries to properly discern genuine claims from fraudulent ones, which is the foundation of the jury system. Application of the standard five-factor test for determining the existence of a duty supports imposing a duty on the doctor to care for the patient's emotional well-being in these specific circumstances. The opinion wisely leaves the determination of other qualifying 'special relationships' to trial courts on a case-by-case basis.
Dissenting - Saylor, J. (Opinion in Support of Reversal)
No. The creation of a new category of substantive liability for healthcare providers involves complex social policy judgments that are better suited for the legislative branch, not the judiciary. Courts should exercise self-restraint in such matters, as the judicial system has inherent limits and not every wrong should be actionable. Furthermore, this new cause of action presents serious practical difficulties, particularly in the assessment of damages. A jury would be tasked with the highly speculative analysis of separating the emotional distress caused by the lack of preparation from the distress the mother would have inevitably suffered anyway, creating what is essentially 'emotional crashworthiness' liability.
Dissenting - Castille, C.J. (Opinion in Support of Reversal)
No. This opinion joins Justice Saylor's opinion regarding the substantive legal question of whether to innovate new liabilities in tort for health care providers.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant, albeit non-precedential, step toward expanding NIED liability in Pennsylvania by recognizing a new theory of recovery based on a 'special relationship.' By dispensing with the long-standing physical impact requirement for this category of claims, the opinion in support of affirmance shifts the focus from a rigid, bright-line rule to a more flexible, fact-intensive inquiry centered on duty and foreseeability. While the court's equal division prevents this opinion from becoming binding precedent, it provides a strong persuasive framework for future litigants arguing for recovery based on purely emotional harm resulting from a breach of a professional or fiduciary duty. The case highlights the tension between compensating genuine, severe emotional injury and the judicial concern over creating speculative, potentially limitless liability, especially in the medical field.
Unlock the full brief for Toney v. Chester County Hospital