Berman v. Laboratory Corp. of America
268 P.3d 68
Okla.2011Background
- DHS pursued paternity testing for child support against Herbert White, Jr., via LabCorp, which initially indicated White was not the father.
- A second LabCorp test yielded similar results; later, Berman submitted a different DNA envelope to another lab, which suggested White was the father.
- Berman filed a separate Oklahoma County suit against LabCorp for negligent testing, alleging incorrect identifications and use of the same DNA sample across tests.
- LabCorp asserted absolute/qualified privilege under 12 O.S. § 1443.1 and moved for summary judgment; trial court granted, COCA affirmed on privilege grounds.
- This Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the DHS paternity proceeding is quasi-judicial and whether privilege forecloses Berman’s negligence claim.
- The Court held the privilege under § 1443.1 is inapplicable and reversed the summary judgment, remanding for trial on duty/negligence grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does LabCorp owe a duty of care in paternity testing? | Berman asserts LabCorp negligently performed tests, causing incorrect results and damages. | LabCorp argues that privilege or lack of duty precludes negligence claims in this context. | Yes; LabCorp owed a duty to perform accurate testing. |
| Is the DHS paternity proceeding quasi-judicial such that communications are privileged? | Berman relies on Kirschstein and Hartley to apply privilege to related proceedings. | LabCorp contends privilege bars only defamation/related claims, not a pure negligence claim. | No; privilege under § 1443.1 does not bar the negligence claim here. |
| Should summary judgment have been granted based on privilege or duty? | Berman contends the case arises from LabCorp's negligent testing, not privileged communications. | LabCorp maintains the case is barred by privilege and lack of duty. | Summary judgment was inappropriate; trial on the merits required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirschstein v. Haynes, 788 P.2d 941 (Okla. 1990) (absolute privilege extends to pre-proceeding communications)
- Hartley v. Williamson, 18 P.3d 355 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001) (extends privilege to related claims arising from same circumstances)
- Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Adams, 168 P.2d 105 (Okla. 1946) (publication must be relevant to issues for absolute privilege)
- Estate of Tytanic, 61 P.3d 249 (Okla. 2002) (DNA evidence admitted in various contexts; parentage/testing relevance)
- Adoption of Baby Girl B., 67 P.3d 359 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008) (DNA evidence used in adoption context; related to paternity testing)