## Facts

- A Wilmington dentist continued treating patients while infected with HIV and later AIDS; he died in 1991.
- Thirty-eight former patients sued the administrator of the dentist’s estate, alleging they would not have consented to treatment had they known of his condition.
- Plaintiffs claimed emotional distress from fear of contracting HIV/AIDS and sought damages despite no resulting illness.
- Some plaintiffs alleged the dentist affirmatively denied having AIDS when asked.
- A public health investigation found the dentist used better-than-average sterilization and precautions and identified no patient who became HIV-positive from treatment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the estate on all claims due to the absence of physical harm.
- On appeal, plaintiffs challenged only the rulings on battery and fraudulent misrepresentation.

## Issues

1. Whether patients may recover for battery based on fear of contracting AIDS from dental treatment, without proof of actual exposure to HIV or physical injury.
2. Whether patients may recover for fraudulent misrepresentation where the dentist allegedly denied having AIDS when asked, and the patients seek only economic damages despite no exposure or physical harm.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment on the battery claim.
- The court held that routine dental contact is not “offensive” for battery purposes based solely on fear of AIDS absent actual exposure to a disease-causing agent.
- The court reversed summary judgment in part on fraudulent misrepresentation.
- The court allowed claims to proceed only for plaintiffs who received a direct false assurance that the dentist did not have AIDS and were treated thereafter, and only if damages are limited to economic losses.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, including issues related to the scope of recoverable economic damages and possible mitigation given the availability of free public testing.

## Legal Principles

- Battery requires intentional, unpermitted contact that is harmful or objectively offensive; offensiveness is assessed under an objective reasonableness standard.
- Fear of contracting a disease is not compensable under battery absent proof of actual exposure to a disease-causing agent or resulting physical harm.
- Mere nondisclosure of a provider’s medical condition, without exposure or injury, does not support damages for fear-based harms under a battery theory.
- A fraudulent misrepresentation claim may proceed where a defendant makes a direct, false statement of material fact that induces the plaintiff to submit to treatment, but recovery may be confined to economic damages when there is no physical harm or exposure.
- Reasonable mitigation may limit recoverable economic losses when lower-cost or free alternatives (such as public testing) were available.

## Conclusion

The court rejected battery liability for fear of AIDS without actual exposure or injury, but permitted a narrowly limited fraudulent-misrepresentation path for patients who were directly and falsely told the provider did not have AIDS, with recovery confined to economic losses.


Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355 (Del. 1995)