Toney v. Chester County Hospital
36 A.3d 83
| Pa. | 2011Background
- The Pennsylvania Court granted review to decide if negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) exists where distress arises from a negligent breach of contractual or fiduciary duty without physical impact, limiting liability to special relationships with foreseeably severe emotional harm.
- Plaintiff Jeanelle To-ney alleged Defendants negligently misinterpreted a March 3, 2003 pelvic ultrasound, reporting normal results, while her unborn child later exhibited profound abnormalities at birth.
- To-ney claimed emotional distress from witnessing her son’s birth, including nausea, headaches, insomnia, and trauma, caused by the misinterpretation, not by the deformities themselves or any delayed treatment.
- The trial court dismissed the NIED claim, citing the lack of zone-of-danger, bystander, or physical-impact theories, and relying on Doe, Armstrong, and Crivellaro as limiting precedents.
- The Superior Court (en banc) reversed, holding that preexisting fiduciary/contractual relationships can support NIED, and that physical impact is not required if the emotional distress is severe and connected to a doctor-patient relationship.
- This Court held that NIED can arise from a special relationship with an implied duty to protect emotional well-being, particularly in obstetrics, and remanded for trial; the order of the Superior Court was affirmed by operation of law due to a split court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can NIED arise from a preexisting contractual or fiduciary relationship without physical impact? | To-ney argues such special-relationship NIED is viable and should be recognized. | Defendants urge that NIED should not extend beyond widely recognized theories and would create broad liability. | Yes; special-relationship NIED is viable without physical impact. |
| Is physical impact required for a special-relationship NIED claim? | Plaintiff contends physical impact is not necessary to recover for emotional distress in a special relationship. | Defendants maintain physical impact or danger is required to limit liability and prevent fraud. | No; physical impact not required for this NIED theory. |
| Did Plaintiff allege a cognizable breach of an implied duty to care for emotional well-being in the doctor-patient context? | To-ney alleged an implied duty to protect her emotional well-being by properly interpreting the ultrasound. | Defendants argued the allegation did not show a breach causing the claimed distress. | Yes; the pleadings alleged a breach of an implied duty to care for emotional well-being. |
| Does the trial court properly decide NIED viability at preliminary objections when causation and damages require jury resolution? | NIED viability should proceed to jury to determine causation and damages. | Preliminary objections should dismiss if lack of cognizable NIED theory or causation is evident. | Case to proceed to trial on causation and damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crivellaro v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 341 Pa.Sup. 173, 491 A.2d 207 (Pa. Super. 1985) (early NIED case recognizing duty-breach-causation under special relationship theory)
- Doe v. Philadelphia Community Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 745 A.2d 25 (Pa. Super. 2000) (exists NIED theories beyond zone of danger and bystander; preexisting relationship referenced)
- Armstrong v. Paoli Memorial Hospital, 633 A.2d 605 (Pa. Super. 1993) (preexisting duty concerns; limits of NIED against non-patient)
- Niederman v. Brodsky, 436 Pa. 401, 261 A.2d 84 (Pa. 1970) (zone of danger theory expanded NIED without requiring physical impact)
- Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 404 A.2d 672 (Pa. 1979) (by-stander liability for close family witnessing serious injury)
- Simmons v. Pacor, Inc., 674 A.2d 232 (Pa. 1996) (reiterates physical impact requirement for NIED)