Laboratory Corporation of America v. Hood, 395 Md. 608, 911 A.2d 841 (2006)

Facts

  • Laboratory Corporation of America and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (collectively, LabCorp) were North Carolina corporations providing medical-testing services.
  • Karen Hood and Scott Hood were Maryland residents.
  • During Karen Hood’s pregnancy, her Maryland physician obtained an amniocentesis specimen for genetic testing.
  • The specimen (or its related testing materials) was sent to LabCorp for analysis in North Carolina.
  • LabCorp allegedly misread a chromatograph and erroneously reported that the fetus was not likely to be affected by cystic fibrosis (CF).
  • The Hoods alleged that they relied on the reported results in deciding to continue the pregnancy.
  • Their son, Luke, was born in Maryland with cystic fibrosis.
  • The Hoods filed a negligence “wrongful birth” action against LabCorp in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
  • Because the testing conduct occurred in North Carolina and the birth and alleged injury occurred in Maryland, the federal court needed Maryland choice-of-law rules and certified questions to the Court of Appeals of Maryland under the Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act.

Issues

  1. In a case where a laboratory receives a specimen from a Maryland physician but allegedly misinterprets it in another state, should Maryland follow Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 380(2) (a “standard of care” provision) and apply the other state’s substantive law?
  2. Would applying North Carolina law to deny Maryland residents the right to bring a wrongful-birth action violate Maryland public policy?
  3. When test results are delivered to the mother’s physician but both parents are expected to rely on the results, does the laboratory have a relationship with the father sufficient to create a duty of care to him?

Decision

  • The Court of Appeals of Maryland answered certified questions from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
  • On the first question, the court rejected applying Restatement (First) § 380(2) as a choice-of-law rule in this setting and applied Maryland’s tort choice-of-law rule (lex loci delicti), which points to the law of the place of injury—Maryland.
  • On the second question, the court concluded that using North Carolina law to bar the Hoods’ wrongful-birth claim would conflict with Maryland public policy, given Maryland’s recognition of parental recovery for injuries caused by negligent prenatal testing and counseling.
  • On the third question, the court stated it could not answer “precisely as presented” without factual findings reserved to the federal court, but explained that a laboratory may owe a duty of care to the father, not just the mother, when the laboratory knows or should know that both parents will rely on the results in reproductive decision-making.

Legal Principles

  • Maryland’s default rule for tort choice of law is lex loci delicti: substantive tort law is generally supplied by the state where the injury occurred.
  • Maryland did not treat Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 380(2) as controlling Maryland choice-of-law doctrine for importing another state’s substantive limits on liability in this context.
  • Maryland may refuse to apply a foreign state’s law when doing so would conflict with Maryland public policy, including Maryland’s recognition of parental wrongful-birth claims seeking damages tied to the extraordinary costs associated with a child’s disability caused by negligent prenatal testing.
  • Under Maryland negligence law, duty can extend beyond the direct patient when the defendant’s undertaking is intended to guide decisions by identifiable third persons and reliance by those persons is reasonably foreseeable; for prenatal genetic testing, that can include the father.
  • When certified questions involve duty and related relationship-based elements, a state court may describe the governing legal framework while leaving disputed or missing facts for the federal court to determine.

Conclusion

Laboratory Corporation of America v. Hood holds, in response to certified questions, that Maryland applies lex loci delicti (and Maryland public policy) to apply Maryland substantive law to Maryland residents’ wrongful-birth claims arising from allegedly negligent prenatal testing, and that a testing laboratory may owe a duty of care to the father as well as the mother when reliance by both parents is reasonably foreseeable, with concrete fact findings left to the federal district court.