Stoleson v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Torts

Tortscausationdamageseggshell skullpsychosomatic injuryeggshell skullthin skullpsychological susceptibility

Facts

Mrs. Stoleson worked in a federal munitions plant where she was exposed to nitroglycerin and developed weekend chest pains and a 1968 heart episode; the district court found the government's negligence caused that heart disease. After she left the plant in 1971, her organic heart condition should have abated and did not leave medically significant lasting damage, yet she later continued to report chest pain, dizziness, fatigue, and other symptoms with no organic basis. Her psychiatrist testified that her condition was hypochondriacal neurosis induced by her heart disease and aggravated by Dr. Lange's advice and the lawsuit, while the government's psychiatrist testified that she was a hypochondriac and may have been one throughout adult life. The district judge found she failed to prove the necessary causal linkage between the government's negligence and her later hypochondriacal symptoms.

Issue

Whether the government, whose negligence caused plaintiff's earlier physical heart condition, was also liable for damages for her later hypochondriacal or psychosomatic symptoms. More specifically, did plaintiff prove that those later symptoms were caused by the government's negligence rather than by other factors or preexisting susceptibility?

Rule

Under Wisconsin law, a tortfeasor takes the victim as found, including psychological as well as physical vulnerability, and may also be liable for aggravation of the original injury caused by subsequent medical treatment, even negligent treatment. But recovery for hypochondriacal or psychosomatic symptoms still requires proof that the defendant's negligence actually caused those symptoms; courts should approach such claims skeptically because diagnosis and causal attribution are highly uncertain. In eggshell-skull cases, damages must also be adjusted for the probability that the plaintiff's preexisting condition would have produced similar harm even without the tort.

🔒

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 Milwaukee, Orion Coatings negligently exposed Dana Kerr to fumes that caused a short-lived, medically documented lung irritation. After the exposure ended and the irritation resolved, Dana developed persistent breathlessness and chest tightness with no organic basis; psychiatrists agree she has a somatic-symptom disorder, and one expert testifies that Dana's unusual psychological vulnerability made her react far more severely than an ordinary person would have.

If Dana proves that the exposure-triggered lung episode in fact caused her later psychosomatic symptoms, which statement best describes Orion Coatings' liability?

Explanation. The majority recognized that a tortfeasor takes the plaintiff as found, including psychological as well as physical vulnerability. If the plaintiff proves factual causation between the defendant's negligence and the later psychosomatic symptoms, the defendant cannot avoid liability merely because the plaintiff's mental susceptibility magnified the consequences. The court specifically rejected the idea that psychological vulnerability is outside the eggshell-skull rule. (Derived from Stoleson v. United States (n.d.).)