332 Conn. 325
Conn.2019Background
- Jane Doe (plaintiff) alleged she contracted genital herpes from her boyfriend (John Smith) after Smith was erroneously told by Dr. Cochran’s office that his HSV-2 test was negative despite a positive lab value.
- Smith had told Dr. Cochran that he sought testing for the protection of his exclusive girlfriend; the physician reviewed the lab report showing HSV-2 IgG = 4.43 but delegated result notification to staff, who relayed a false negative.
- After sexual contact, Doe developed outbreaks and was diagnosed with herpes; Smith later learned and the doctor apologized for the earlier erroneous result.
- Doe sued Dr. Cochran in a single-count negligence complaint (pleading ordinary negligence and attaching a §52-190a certificate), alleging the misreporting caused her infection.
- Trial court granted the defendant’s motion to strike, concluding no duty to the nonpatient third party; the Supreme Court reversed, holding a duty existed under the pleaded facts and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint sounded in medical malpractice (requiring physician-patient relationship) or ordinary negligence | Complaint alleges ordinary negligence/negligent miscommunication of test results; expert proof unnecessary | Complaint alleges malpractice language and certificate; lack of physician‑patient relationship defeats claim | Court: Complaint can be read as ordinary negligence (ministerial misreading/ miscommunication), not necessarily malpractice; expert testimony not required |
| Whether a physician owes a duty to a nonpatient sexual partner when misreporting STD results | Dr. Cochran owed a duty to Doe as an identifiable third party whom Smith sought testing to protect and who foreseeably relied on the result and was infected | No duty to nonpatients; extending duty would conflict with physician‑patient sanctity, confidentiality, policy, and create limitless liability | Court: A duty exists to an identifiable exclusive partner foreseeably exposed and infected by reliance on the erroneous communication |
| Scope of that duty and required conduct | Duty limited: accurately relay test results to patient; no affirmative duty to contact partner | Imposition would require intrusive contact/warnings, increase costs, defensive medicine | Court: Duty is narrow—physician must accurately inform patient; satisfying that duty ordinarily protects the third party and is not intrusive |
| Public policy concerns (foreseeability, floodgates, insurance, confidentiality) | Allowing recovery compensates injured nonpatient, deters careless reporting, aligns with public health duties | Recognition will open floodgates, raise costs, breach confidentiality, and encourage defensive practices | Court: Policy factors favor recognizing limited duty to identifiable partners; risks can be cabined by identifiability and narrow scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarmie v. Troncale, 306 Conn. 578 (Conn. 2012) (framework for when physicians owe duties to nonpatients and emphasis on identifiable victims)
- Squeo v. Norwalk Hosp. Assn., 316 Conn. 558 (Conn. 2015) (permitting bystander emotional‑distress recovery from medical malpractice where gross negligence is apparent)
- Gold v. Greenwich Hosp. Assn., 262 Conn. 248 (Conn. 2002) (distinguishing medical malpractice from ordinary negligence and explaining need for expert proof in malpractice)
- Reisner v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 31 Cal. App. 4th 1195 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (physician’s duty to advise patient of HIV status extended to foreseeable sexual partners)
- DiMarco v. Lynch Homes‑Chester Cty., 525 Pa. 558 (Pa. 1990) (third‑party standing where physician’s erroneous advice about communicable disease foreseeably endangered others)