Seebold v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 57 A.3d 1232

Appellee Michelle Seebold, a corrections officer at SCI Muncy, sues Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS) under a negligence theory.
PHS provided medical services at SCI Muncy under contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC).
Approximately twelve female inmates had MRSA infections; skin lesions were described as spider bites by PHS staff.
Seebold claims PHS staff knew or should have known of the infections and owed a duty to staff and inmates to warn and protect against MRSA.
The complaint alleges failure to diagnose, failure to remove MRSA-infected inmates, advise on avoidance, and instruct on precautions during strip searches, with liability imputed to PHS due to staff acting within course and scope of employment.
The Superior Court remanded on the duty issue, and the Supreme Court granted allocatur to address whether physicians owe a duty to warn third-party non-patients about a patient’s communicable disease.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether physicians owe a duty to third parties with no physician-patient relationship.	Seebold relies on DiMarco and Troxel to expand duties to third parties.	PHS contends DiMarco/Troxel apply only to advising patients, not third parties.	No, such a duty to third parties is not established.
Whether Section 324A supports a third-party duty.	Section 324A should create liability for failure to protect third parties.	324A covers care within the undertakings to protect others, not new third-party duties.	324A does not create a broad third-party duty outside the physician-patient relationship.
Whether the Superior Court properly relied on DiMarco/Troxel to impose a duty to third parties.	DiMarco/Troxel support a duty to third parties in preventing disease spread.	Those cases limit duties to advising patients, not third parties outside the relationship.	The Superior Court erred in treating DiMarco/Troxel as supporting third-party duties.
Whether the Court should adopt a broad policy-based decision to impose new physician duties in prisons.	A broader Althaus factors analysis supports imposing a duty to protect staff.	Imposing new duties raises policy concerns and should be left to Legislature; not preserved for adjudication.	The default approach declines imposing new affirmative duties; policy analysis not preserved.

DiMarco v. Lynch Homes-Chester County, Inc., 525 Pa. 558, 583 A.2d 422 (1990) (Pa. 1990) (duty to advise patient to prevent spread to third parties; third-party harm contemplated)
Troxel v. A.I. Dupont Institute, 450 Pa. Super. 71, 675 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. 1996) (Pa. Super. 1996) (duty to third parties discussed in context of advising patient1)
Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc., 554 Pa. 209, 720 A.2d 1032 (1998) (Pa. 1998) (limited duty to warn in targeted imminent threats; cautioned against broad expansion)
Witthoeft v. Kiskaddon, 557 Pa. 340, 733 A.2d 623 (1999) (Pa. 1999) (refused broad liability extension to public generally; contextual limits on duty expansion)
Cafazzo v. Central Med. Health Servs., Inc., 542 Pa. 526, 668 A.2d 521 (1995) (Pa. 1995) (caution against expanding physician duties without clear policy)
Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 756 A.2d 1166 (2000) (Pa. 2000) (establishes factors (Althaus factors) for duty analysis)
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP v. Commonwealth, 605 Pa. 269, 989 A.2d 313 (2010) (Pa. 2010) (recognizes legislature as policy maker for social issues)