Hedgepeth v. Whitman Walker Clinic

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011 · Torts

TortsNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressMedical MalpracticeNIEDzone of physical dangerdoctor-patient relationshipmisdiagnosisserious and verifiable emotional distress

Facts

Terry Hedgepeth went to Whitman Walker Clinic for HIV testing, and although the laboratory test was non-reactive, clinic records mistakenly indicated he was HIV positive. Dr. Mary Fanning, who had both the incorrect clinic form and the accurate lab result in the file, told Hedgepeth he was HIV positive. Hedgepeth believed this diagnosis for five years and presented evidence that he became severely depressed, had suicidal thoughts, was admitted to psychiatric wards, lost his job, damaged his relationship with his daughter, and engaged in destructive behavior. In 2005, another clinic tested him and correctly informed him that he was not HIV positive.

Issue

Whether the zone of physical danger test is the exclusive means of recovering for negligent infliction of emotional distress in the District of Columbia, such that a patient cannot recover for serious emotional distress caused by a doctor's negligent misdiagnosis unless the patient was placed at risk of physical injury. More specifically, the question was whether a doctor-patient relationship involving HIV testing and diagnosis can support a duty to avoid negligently causing serious emotional distress even without physical danger.

Rule

A plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress if the plaintiff shows that (1) the defendant has a relationship with the plaintiff, or has undertaken an obligation to the plaintiff, of a nature that necessarily implicates the plaintiff's emotional well-being, (2) there is an especially likely risk that the defendant's negligence would cause serious emotional distress to the plaintiff, and (3) the defendant's negligent actions or omissions in breach of that obligation in fact caused serious emotional distress to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must establish serious and verifiable emotional distress, and in the absence of such a relationship or undertaking, the general rule remains the Williams zone of physical danger test for strangers.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, Dr. Nina Salazar reviewed Maya Chen’s thyroid biopsy file. The pathology report in the file was benign, but Dr. Salazar negligently read from a mislabeled note and told Maya she had an aggressive cancer requiring immediate life planning. Maya later learned the truth and offers records showing hospitalization for severe depression, months of psychiatric treatment, and loss of employment.

If Maya sues only for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and she was never placed in physical danger, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority adopted a supplemental rule to the zone-of-physical-danger test. A plaintiff may recover when the defendant has a relationship or undertaking that necessarily implicates the plaintiff’s emotional well-being, negligence creates an especially likely risk of serious emotional distress, and the breach in fact causes serious and verifiable distress. A doctor-patient undertaking involving a grave diagnosis fits that framework even without physical danger. (Derived from Hedgepeth v. Whitman Walker Clinic (2011).)