Couple may sue over wrong syphilis report

Press, 17 September 1980, Page 34

Couple may sue over wrong syphilis report

By John Hutchison in 1976 a San Francisco hospital conducted a routine physical examination of a married woman and reported to her that she had syphilis. Her doctor advised her .to tell her husband, who might also need treatment. She did..He was found free of the disease. She was treated for it. Then the hospital informed her that she had been mistakenly diagnosed: she had not had syphilis after all. Between the initial report and its final correction mutual suspicion and strain was generated between the couple, destroying their marriage. They are divorced. Both lost in efforts to sue for damages. Now the California Supreme Court has ruled that Stephen Molien, aged 40, a plumber, may sue the hospital and the doctor for damages for “emo-' tional distress.” His former wife is expected to file a similar suit. The High Court over-naled the earlier plea which had been thrown out of a lower court.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion in a 6-2 decision said, in part, that “emotional injury may befully as severe as physical harm, and is no less deserving of redress.” The Court also noted that false imputation of syphilis was an actionable slander under Californian law. The case sets a piecedent. The previous legal standard for a plea has been showing that mental or emotional injury accompanied physical injury. The Court, in clearing the way for the Moliens to sue for damages, may open the door for a whole new field of litigation, legal experts said. The, Justice who wrote the majority opinion said, in part:

“The refusal to recognise a cause of action for negligently, inflicted injury in the absence of some physical consequences is an anachronism.” The decision noted that the doctor who advised Mrs Molien should have known what effect his counsel would have on the family.-