Doe v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.
395 S.W.3d 8
Mo.2013Background
- John Doe seeks damages for wrongful disclosure of his HIV status under Mo. Rev. Stat. §191.656 and for breach of fiduciary duty.
- Dr. German’s requisition form included a box where Ms. Mustone noted “Faxed to 3xx-xxx8,” though Doe did not provide written authorization.
- Quest faxed the HIV report to Dr. German and to the church number, accessible at a church location.
- The box containing the fax instruction was not a proper written authorization by Doe, and there was no signature or explicit authorization by Doe.
- Trial court directed verdict for Quest Diagnostics on some claims; jury awarded in favor of Quest Laboratories; Doe appeals to challenge the jury instructions, fiduciary duty theory, and veil-piercing theory.
- Court reverses in part and remands; Quest Laboratories’ verdict is reversed on the authorization issue; Quest Diagnostics’ verdict is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Instruction No. 9 on written authorization was proper | Doe | Quest | Instruction improper; prejudicial error. |
| Whether there exists a fiduciary-duty claim against Quest Laboratories/Diagnostics | Doe sought a fiduciary duty theory beyond confidentiality statute | No recognized fiduciary relationship; statute provides remedy | No fiduciary-duty recognition; statutory remedy controls. |
| Whether Quest Diagnostics can be held liable via piercing the corporate veil | Doe seeks parent liability for subsidiary | Insufficient factors to pierce veil | Directed verdict proper; veil not pierced. |
| Whether an affidavit of merit under §538.225 was required | Not a medical malpractice action; affidavit unnecessary | Affidavit required for health care-provider actions | Affirmed: affidavit not required for confidentiality breach claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Westfall, 75 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. banc 2002) (standard for assessing jury instruction prejudice)
- First Bank v. Fischer & Frichtel, Inc., 364 S.W.3d 216 (Mo. banc 2012) (instruction review when no MAI, assess understanding and law alignment)
- Investors Title Co., Inc. v. Hammonds, 217 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. banc 2007) (substantial evidence requirement for submissible case)
- Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1991) (affidavits of merit; malpractice context, relevance clarified)
- Daugherty v. State, 631 S.W.2d 637 (Mo. banc 1982) (instruction standards and prejudicial error)