Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1982 September Term, 1995 _______________________________

SURENA LEMON, et al.

v.

DONALD W. STEWART, et al.

_______________________________ Wilner, C.J., Murphy, Eyler, JJ. _______________________________ Opinion by Wilner, C.J. _______________________________ Filed: September 26, 1996

This

medical

malpractice

action,

which

makes

its

second

appearance in this Court, presents two interesting questions of first impression in Maryland: (1) when a patient is diagnosed as positive for HIV or AIDS, does the patient's health care provider have a duty to inform members of the patient's extended family, such as appellants in this case, of the patient's positive HIV/AIDS status; and (2) do such persons have a cause of action against the health care provider for breaching its duty to advise its patient of his or her positive HIV/AIDS status? We shall answer both

questions in the negative and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND The fourteen appellants, who were plaintiffs below, are

persons who are "either related to, or have otherwise had personal contact with" one Herbert Lemon, Sr. They initially sued appellees

Donald Stewart, who is a physician, and Liberty Medical Center, Inc. in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, seeking $5 million apiece in damages because the appellees omitted to inform Mr. Lemon, appropriate health authorities, or appellants that Mr. Lemon was HIV-positive. action as to each The amended complaint alleged four causes of of the appellants -- negligence, negligent

misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court dismissed the amended complaint on the ground that it failed to allege a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The negligent infliction of emotional distress count was

dismissed because the court found that Maryland does not recognize an independent action of that kind. The other claims were

dismissed because they were premised on the breach of some duty flowing to the appellants, and the court concluded, as a matter of law, that no such duty existed on the part of appellees to the appellants. Appellants appealed that judgment. In an unpublished per

curiam Opinion, we concluded that, because the claims made by appellants were for medical injury committed by health care

providers, they were required to be submitted first to arbitration in accordance with the Maryland Health Claims Arbitration Act, Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. art.,

Download Lemon v. Stewart.pdf

Maryland Law