Iacangelo v. Georgetown University
760 F. Supp. 2d 63
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege medical malpractice and lack of informed consent by Dr. Vance Watson in treating Ms. Kerris.
- Count V asserts breach of fiduciary duty by Watson; Counts I and II assert negligence and lack of informed consent respectively.
- Court had earlier deferred JMOL on Counts I and II; granted JMOL on Count V.
- Court held doctor-patient relationship provides duties to act prudently and to disclose risks; fiduciary claim duplicative of I/II.
- Court dismissed Count V as duplicative, citing judicial economy and DC law on duplicative fiduciary claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fiduciary claim is duplicative | Kerris claim rests on fiduciary breach independent of malpractice. | Fiduciary claim merely restates malpractice and informed consent claims. | Count V dismissed as duplicative |
| Whether doctor-patient duty supports fiduciary claim | Doctor-patient trust creates a special fiduciary obligation. | No fiduciary duty beyond standard medical duties. | No independent fiduciary duty; duplicative theory rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Wilson, 721 A.2d 591 (D.C.1998) (duty to act as reasonably prudent physician; informed consent duties)
- Miller-McGee v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 920 A.2d 430 (D.C.2007) (duty to inform patient of consequences of proposed treatment)
- Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 755 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2010) (courts dismiss duplicative claims for judicial economy)
- Hinton v. Rudasill, 384 F. App'x 2 (D.C.Cir.2010) (reaffirmation that recharacterizing malpractice as fiduciary duty lacks substance)
- Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP, 967 A.2d 662 (D.C.2009) (recasting malpractice as fiduciary duty is improper)