Safer v. Pack case brief summary
677 A.2d 1188 (1996)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, a patient and husband, contended that multiple polyposis, a condition which appellant patient suffered from, was a hereditary condition that, if undiscovered and untreated, invariably lead to metastatic colorectal cancer. Appellant patient's father had also suffered from this condition. Appellants contended that the hereditary nature of the disease was known at the time appellee physician was treating appellant patient's father, and that the physician was required, by medical standards then prevailing, to warn those at risk so that they might have the benefits of early examination, monitoring, detection and treatment, that would provide opportunity to avoid the most baneful consequences of the condition.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the order of the trial court, which dismissed appellant patient and husband's complaint. The court affirmed the trial court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. The court held that a physician had a duty to warn those known to be at risk of avoidable harm from a genetically transmissible condition.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
677 A.2d 1188 (1996)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, a patient and
her husband, sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Bergen County, which entered an order dismissing their
complaint and denying their cross-motion for partial summary judgment
as to liability only.CASE FACTS
Appellants, a patient and husband, contended that multiple polyposis, a condition which appellant patient suffered from, was a hereditary condition that, if undiscovered and untreated, invariably lead to metastatic colorectal cancer. Appellant patient's father had also suffered from this condition. Appellants contended that the hereditary nature of the disease was known at the time appellee physician was treating appellant patient's father, and that the physician was required, by medical standards then prevailing, to warn those at risk so that they might have the benefits of early examination, monitoring, detection and treatment, that would provide opportunity to avoid the most baneful consequences of the condition.
DISCUSSION
- The court agreed with appellant.
- The court held that a physician had a duty to warn those known to be at risk of avoidable harm from a genetically transmissible condition.
- The court held that there was no essential difference between the type of genetic threat at issue here and the menace of infection, contagion or a threat of physical harm.
- Accordingly, the court reversed the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the order of the trial court, which dismissed appellant patient and husband's complaint. The court affirmed the trial court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. The court held that a physician had a duty to warn those known to be at risk of avoidable harm from a genetically transmissible condition.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment