District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District · 1998 · Torts
TortsMedical malpracticeDutyThird-party liabilitymedical negligencephysician dutythird partiesidentified third parties
Facts
In May 1994, Dr. Pizarro tested Ellen Shaw for hepatitis C, and the laboratory correctly reported a positive result, but his office incorrectly told Shaw the result was negative. Several months later Shaw met James Hawkins, and they later married; after Shaw was retested in May 1995 and learned in August 1995 that her earlier result had actually been positive, Hawkins was also found to be hepatitis C positive shortly thereafter. Shaw and Hawkins sued, alleging that if Shaw had been properly informed earlier, they could have taken steps to prevent transmission to Hawkins. Hawkins submitted an expert affidavit stating that a physician has a continuing duty to inform a patient of correct positive test results for a highly contagious disease and that transmission to a sexual partner was foreseeable.
Issue
Does a physician who incorrectly communicates a patient's positive hepatitis C test result owe a duty of care to a future sexual partner who was unknown and unidentified to the physician at the time of the miscommunication?
Rule
Under Pate v. Threlkel, a physician's duty runs to third parties only when the prevailing standard of care creates a duty obviously for the benefit of certain identified third parties and the physician knows of the existence of those third parties.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Tampa, Dr. Lena Ortiz negligently tells her patient, Marisol Vega, that her blood test for a communicable sexually transmissible infection is negative when it is actually positive. At the time, Dr. Ortiz's intake forms list Marisol's husband, Daniel Vega, as her spouse and emergency contact, and Daniel later contracts the infection from Marisol.
If Daniel sues Dr. Ortiz for negligence, which is the best analysis under the governing rule?
Explanation. The rule is that a physician's duty extends to third parties only when the prevailing standard of care is obviously for the benefit of certain identified third parties and the physician knows those third parties exist. Unlike an unknown future partner, a known spouse listed in the physician's records is a specifically identified third party known to the physician. Foreseeability alone is not enough, but identified-and-known status may satisfy the duty requirement. (Derived from Hawkins v. Pizarro (n.d.).)