Oblachinski v. Reynolds, 706 S.E.2d 844

Reynolds, as Medical Director, examined a four-year-old girl for sexual abuse, diagnosed a torn hymen, and documented findings via photos/video.
A second doctor later concluded Reynolds misdiagnosed the child and that the examination fell below the standard of care.
Oblachinski was later sued for defamation and then filed a separate civil action asserting negligence against Reynolds and Lexington Pediatric Practice.
Circuit court granted summary judgment, holding that Respondents owed no duty of care to Oblachinski as a third party.
On appeal, Oblachinski challenged the duty ruling, arguing exceptions permitting third-party suits against physicians should apply.
The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, ruling no duty to Oblachinski as a third party and rejecting extension of Hardee/Bishop principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a duty exists from physician to a nonpatient for negligent diagnosis	Oblachinski asserts third-party duty under limited exceptions.	Respondents contend no duty to Oblachinski under current doctrine.	No duty extended to Oblachinski; summary judgment affirmed.

Bishop v. S.C. Dep't of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 502 S.E.2d 78 (1998) (limits third-party physician duty; duty to patient only in that context)
Hardee v. Bio-Medical Applications of S.C., Inc., 370 S.C. 511, 636 S.E.2d 629 (2006) (duty to third parties mirrors duty to patient in limited circumstances)
Charleston Dry Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 355 S.C. 614, 586 S.E.2d 586 (2003) (foreseeability alone does not create a duty)
Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 756 A.2d 1166 (2000) (limits extending duty to third parties in medical contexts)
Vineyard v. Kraft, 828 S.W.2d 248 (Tex.App.1992) (no duty to father for negligent misdiagnosis of sexual abuse)
Dominguez v. Kelly, 786 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.App.1990) (doctor's duty is to conduct examination not to cause harm; no third-party duty)