Hedgepeth v. Whitman Walker Clinic
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 369
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Hedgepeth was diagnosed HIV positive by WWC due to clerical error; diagnosis caused five years of depression and work/personal consequences.
- Clinic later corrected the diagnosis; patient sought damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) without physical injury.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment, applying Williams zone of physical danger rule; appellate division affirmed.
- This court granted rehearing to decide whether zone of danger should bar claims and whether a relationship-based duty can exist.
- Court adopts a supplemental rule: duty to avoid serious emotional distress arises from special relationships/undertakings that implicate emotional well-being and foreseeably cause serious distress.
- Under the new rule, doctor-patient relationship testing/treated for HIV constitutes such an undertaking; misdiagnosis caused serious emotional distress; summary judgment reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should zone of physical danger be the sole NIED basis? | Hedgepeth seeks a supplemental duty based on doctor-patient undertaking. | WWC argues Williams zone of danger limits liability and prevents infinite claims. | Zone of danger not exclusive; adopt supplemental undertakings rule. |
| Does doctor-patient relationship create a duty to avoid serious emotional distress? | Undertaking to test/treat for HIV implicates emotional well-being. | Duty should be limited to zone of physical danger or other traditional limits. | Yes; doctor-patient undertaking can create duty to avoid serious emotional distress. |
| What qualifies as serious emotional distress in this context? | Distress must be serious and verifiable; caused by misdiagnosis. | Distress must be limited by traditional foreseeability or zone rules. | Serious, verifiable distress required; likely under the specific undertaking in medical context. |
| Is this framework limited to medical contexts or broader? | Undertakings/relationships elsewhere may support NIED. | Potential broad expansion risks liability. | Principle extends beyond medicine where undertakings implicate emotional well-being. |
| How should breach and causation be evaluated under the new rule? | Breach proven by medical standard of care; causation shown by distress results. | Must still prove breach/causation under traditional negligence. | Breach assessed by standard of care; causation shown by evidence of distress linked to breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Baker, 572 A.2d 1062 (D.C.1990) (zone of physical danger framework for NIED)
- Jones v. Howard Univ., Inc., 589 A.2d 419 (D.C.1991) (medical context; no physical injury requirement stated later)
- Morgan v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 692 A.2d 417 (D.C.1997) (emotional distress in therapy context; breach of duty discussed)
- Sowell v. Hyatt Corp., 623 A.2d 1221 (D.C.1993) (food contamination case; zone of danger discussed)
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1994) (foreseeability concerns in NIED; limits on liability)