Reed v. Bojarski

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2001 · Torts

TortsMedical malpracticeNegligencePre-employment physical examinationspre-employment physicalthird-party examinationnon-delegable dutyduty to disclose

Facts

Arnold Reed underwent a pre-employment physical required by OSHA, conducted by Dr. Bojarski through Life Care under a contract with EMR, a third-party screening company. A Life Care radiologist reported that Reed's chest X ray showed a widened mediastinum and recommended a follow-up CT scan, but Dr. Bojarski did not tell Reed and did not convey that recommendation or report to EMR; EMR later told Reed he was in good health. Reed returned months later with weight loss and flu-like symptoms, was later diagnosed with Stage IIB Hodgkin's disease, and died eight months afterward. At trial, the jury was allowed to consider the EMR-Life Care contract in deciding whether it was reasonable for Dr. Bojarski to rely on EMR to inform Reed.

Issue

Whether a physician who performs a pre-employment physical for a third party may omit informing the examinee of a potentially serious medical condition discovered in the examination and instead delegate that notification responsibility by contract to the referring agency. Also, whether the jury could treat such a contract as relevant to whether the physician acted reasonably in failing to disclose the abnormality directly to the examinee.

Rule

When a physician examines a person at the request of a third party for a pre-employment physical, a relationship arises under which the physician owes the examinee a duty of reasonable care to the extent of the examination and in communicating its outcome. That duty includes taking reasonable steps to make timely information available to the examinee about previously unknown abnormalities posing a potentially serious danger, and the physician's duty to communicate such abnormalities directly to the examinee is non-delegable. A contract with a third party cannot insulate the physician from liability for breaching that duty.

🔒

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 Cleveland, an applicant for a refinery job, Marcus Hale, was required to undergo a company-paid physical at North Shore Occupational Clinic. During the exam, Dr. Nina Patel discovered from lab work ordered as part of the screening that Marcus had a previously unknown kidney abnormality suggesting a serious disease, but she sent the report only to the employer's screening vendor and said nothing to Marcus.

If Marcus later sues Dr. Patel for negligent failure to disclose, what is the strongest argument that Dr. Patel owed him a duty?

Explanation. The majority held that when a physician examines a person at the request of a third party for a pre-employment physical, a relationship arises under which the physician owes the examinee reasonable care to the extent of the examination and in communicating its outcome. The duty does not depend on a traditional full doctor-patient relationship, employer instructions, or completed employment. (Derived from Reed v. Bojarski (n.d.).)