Doe 30's Mother v. Bradley
2012 Del. Super. LEXIS 197
| Del. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- This Delaware class action targets physicians and medical entities alleged to have failed to report Dr. Bradley’s sexual misconduct and thereby protected patients from harm.
- Jane Doe 30, as a former patient of Dr. Earl B. Bradley, alleges physical, mental and emotional damages to herself and a class of Bradley’s former patients and their parents.
- Beebe Medical Center allegedly employed Bradley and knew of prior complaints but did not report to authorities, continuing to grant privileges through 2009.
- The Medical Society of Delaware, its Physicians’ Health Committee (PHC), and several named physicians are alleged to have received complaints and yet failed to report Bradley or act to protect patients.
- The amended complaint seeks compensatory and exemplary damages for negligence and related theories; Beebe is implicated as Bradley’s employer with ongoing involvement.
- The court dismisses some claims with prejudice for lack of duty or doctor-patient relationship, but finds a viable §324A negligent undertaking claim against the Medical Society defendants, and leaves other potential claims to be amended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Medical Society defendants owe a duty under Restatement §315? | Doe contends a special relationship existed with Bradley or his patients triggering a duty to act. | Medical Society argues no custodial or protective relationship existed with Bradley or patients; §315(a)/(b) not satisfied. | No duty found under §315(a)/(b); original nonfeasance claims dismissed. |
| Can §324A negligent undertaking support liability against the Medical Society defendants? | Undertaking to investigate Barnes’ reports created a duty to protect Bradley’s patients; §324A applies. | Promises alone or undertakings directed to Bradley do not create liability; insufficient under §324A. | Section 324A claim viable for undertaking to protect third persons; partial performance discussed; remanded for summary judgment on immunity later. |
| Does Delaware medical negligence statute require a doctor-patient relationship to support claims against the Medical Society defendants? | Statutory framework and related duties may support negligence claims beyond traditional common law. | Medical negligence statute requires a doctor-patient relationship or health care services; none alleged with the Medical Society defendants. | Medical Society defendants cannot be sued for medical negligence absent a doctor-patient relationship or health care services; claims dismissed. |
| Does the statutory reporting obligation create a private right of action under MPA/CAPA? | Statutes create a special relationship and a private right to action to assure effectiveness of reporting. | Bradley I rejected a private right of action under MPA/CAPA; cannot recognize new duties from statute. | No private right of action under MPA/CAPA; §324A remains the vehicle for potential claims; other grounds dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riedel v. ICI Americas, Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009) (nonfeasance duties governed by Restatement Second; duty requires special relationship)
- Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 26 A.3d 162 (Del. 2011) (duty to act framework; misfeasance vs nonfeasance distinction under Restatement Second)
- Murphy v. Godwin, 303 A.2d 668 (Del. 1973) (recognizes physician-patient relationship as basis for duty in some contexts)
- Spicer v. Osunkoya, 32 A.3d 347 (Del. 2011) (negligent referral context; duty after referral limited)
- Furek v. Univ. of Del., 594 A.2d 506 (Del. 1991) (Good Samaritan/undertaking concepts; duty when taking charge)
- Kuczynski v. McLaughlin, 835 A.2d 150 (Del. Super. Ct. 2003) (duty analysis; relation not suffice alone to create duty)
- Naidu v. Laird, 539 A.2d 1064 (Del. 1988) (special relationships; duty to warn/protect in certain contexts)