Pate v. Threlkel

Supreme Court of Florida · 1995 · Torts

TortsMedical malpracticeDutyPrivityGenetic disease warningmedical malpracticeduty to warngenetic disease

Facts

In 1987, Marianne New was treated for medullary thyroid carcinoma, which the complaint alleged was a genetically transferable disease. In 1990, her adult daughter, Heidi Pate, learned that she also had medullary thyroid carcinoma. Heidi Pate and her husband alleged that New's physicians knew or should have known that New's children were at risk, had a duty to warn New that her children should be tested, and that if New had been warned in 1987, Heidi would have been tested and could have taken preventive action that more likely than not would have made her condition curable. The defendant health care providers moved to dismiss on the ground that they owed no duty to Heidi because no physician-patient relationship existed between them.

Issue

Whether a physician treating a patient for a genetically transferable disease may owe a duty, in a medical malpractice action, that extends to the patient's children to warn the patient of the disease's genetic nature despite the absence of privity between the physician and the children. Also, whether any such duty is discharged by warning the patient rather than directly warning the children.

Rule

A physician's duty in a medical malpractice case is governed by section 766.102 and exists only if the prevailing professional standard of care would require a reasonably prudent similar health care provider, under all relevant circumstances, to warn the patient of the genetically transferable nature of the condition. When that prevailing standard of care creates a duty obviously for the benefit of certain identified third parties known to the physician, the duty runs to those third parties even without privity. If a duty to warn of a genetically transferable disease exists, it is satisfied by warning the patient.

🔒

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 Tampa, Dr. Lena Ortiz treated Rosa Medina for a rare endocrine disorder alleged to be genetically transmissible. Rosa's adult son, Daniel Medina, later developed the same disorder and sued, alleging that reasonably prudent similar physicians would have warned Rosa that her children should be tested, but Dr. Ortiz never gave that warning.

Assuming Daniel was never Dr. Ortiz's patient, which is the strongest basis for allowing his malpractice claim to proceed past a motion to dismiss?

Explanation. The majority held that in a medical malpractice action, duty depends first on the prevailing professional standard of care under section 766.102. If that standard would require warning the patient of the genetic nature of the condition, and the duty is obviously for the benefit of identified third parties known to the physician, those third parties may sue despite lack of privity. The court rejected both an automatic duty based solely on foreseeability and any requirement of direct physician-patient contact with the child. (Derived from Pate v. Threlkel (n.d.).)