Laboratory Corporation Of America v. Hood

911 A.2d 841 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Hoods (Ps) are Maryland residents. Their first child, Zachary, was born in 1997 and was diagnosed with CF when he was two. In order to develop CF, a child must receive a particular gene mutation from both parents. After Zachary was diagnosed, Ps learned that they both carry the recessive delta F508 gene mutation that causes one of the most severe forms of CF. Because they are both carriers of that mutation, each of Karen's pregnancies carries a 25% risk of the child having CF. P became pregnant again, and they were referred to a genetic counselor. Genetic testing performed on the fetus revealed that it had CF, whereupon P terminated the pregnancy. P became pregnant the third time and again decided to have the fetus tested. P had an amniocentesis performed, in Maryland, by her obstetrician. LabCorp (D) operates a nationwide network of 35 primary testing locations and more than 1,100 patient service centers, eight of which are located in Maryland. D performs all of its genetic testing on amniotic fluid in North Carolina. D was informed that Ps carried the CF gene. D reported that, although both parents were carriers of the delta F508 mutation, the amniotic fluid was negative for 31 common CF genetic mutations, and 'this fetus is not expected to be a carrier of cystic fibrosis or be affected by cystic fibrosis.' Ps elected to continue the pregnancy, resulting in the birth of Luke on May 3, 2002. Three months later, Luke was found to be positive for CF. In September 2002, D issued a corrected report which noted that the original chromatograph did, indeed, demonstrate that the fetus was positive for the delta F508 mutation that causes CF - the box containing the word 'del F508' was marked with an asterisk, indicating that the fetus had CF - and stated that their employees had misread the chromatograph. Ps sued Ds for wrongful birth. The court held that, under Maryland law, the action was for negligence, not a breach of contract, and that the Maryland law of negligence therefore applied. The court applied Maryland's choice of law rules and determined that Maryland adheres to lex loci delicti principles for all tort claims. It held that the last event was Luke’s birth and thus Maryland law would apply. D argued that §380(2) of the Restatement (First) of Conflicts of Law applied: 'Whereby the law of the place of the wrong, the liability-creating character of the actor's conduct depends upon the application of a standard of care, and such standard has been defined in particular situations by statute or judicial decision of the law of the place of the actor's conduct, such application of the standard will be made by the forum.' D argued that any breach of the standard of care occurred in North Carolina, and North Carolina law should dictate whether those employees breached a duty owed to Ps. The court certified three questions two of which were whether it should apply the standard-of-care exception and whether denying D's wrongful-birth claim by applying North Carolina law would be violative of Maryland public policy.