70 N.Y.2d 697 (1987)
A physician’s negligent misdiagnosis and advice, which directly leads a patient to undergo a medical procedure that violates her deeply held beliefs, can be the basis for a claim of emotional distress damages, even in the absence of physical injury.
Summary
Carmen Martinez sued Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center for emotional distress. She had an abortion based on the defendant’s negligent genetic counseling, which erroneously indicated a high probability that her child would be born with severe birth defects. After the abortion, she learned the advice was wrong. Martinez, who morally opposed abortion except in extreme cases, claimed the erroneous advice and subsequent abortion caused her severe mental anguish. The Court of Appeals held that Martinez could recover for emotional distress because the distress resulted directly from the defendant’s breach of duty owed directly to her, and her affirmative action based on that breach.
Facts
Carmen Martinez, in her first trimester of pregnancy, sought genetic counseling from Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center to assess the impact of medication she took early in her pregnancy on the fetus. The medical center negligently advised Martinez that her baby would likely be born with microcephaly (small brain) or anencephaly (no brain). Based on this advice, Martinez, who held strong moral objections to abortion except in extraordinary circumstances, underwent an abortion. She later discovered the medical advice was incorrect, and the abortion was unnecessary.
Procedural History
Martinez sued Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center for emotional distress. The trial court ruled in favor of Mrs. Martinez. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts and other issues not reached on the initial appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a patient can recover damages for emotional distress caused by undergoing a medical procedure (abortion) based on a physician’s negligent misdiagnosis and advice when that procedure violated the patient’s deeply held moral beliefs.
Holding
Yes, because the emotional distress was the direct result of the defendant’s breach of a duty owed directly to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff affirmatively acted upon the erroneous advice, resulting in the violation of her deep-seated convictions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court distinguished this case from bystander emotional distress cases such as Tobin v. Grossman, where emotional harm stems from observing injury to a third person. Here, Martinez’s mental anguish stemmed directly from the defendants’ breach of a duty owed to her. The court emphasized that Mrs. Martinez’s emotional distress did not derive from what happened to the fetus, but from the psychological injury directly caused by her agreeing to an act that violated her firmly held beliefs, based on the erroneous medical advice.
The court stated, “[H]er mental anguish and depression are the direct result of defendants’ breach of a duty owed directly to her in giving her erroneous advice on which she affirmatively acted in deciding to have the abortion. The emotional distress for which she seeks recovery does not derive from what happened to the fetus; it derives from the psychological injury directly caused by her agreeing to an act which, as the jury found, was contrary to her firmly held beliefs. Defendants’ breach of duty was the precipitating and proximate cause of that injury.”
The dissent argued that the majority effectively created a new cause of action for negligent infliction of harm to an individual’s deep-seated beliefs, an expansion of tort law beyond established precedents. The dissent emphasized that while intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligently induced fear of physical injury were recognized causes of action, compensating emotional distress from guilt due to acting against one’s convictions based on negligent advice was unprecedented.