Doe v. Cochran

Summary

The dissent rejects the recognition of a direct duty by a physician to an identifiable romantic partner of a patient in connection with the diagnosis and reporting of sexually transmitted disease results. It reasons that foreseeability alone is insufficient and that Connecticut precedent, physician-patient confidentiality, loyalty, increased litigation, defensive medicine, and legislative policy concerns weigh against extending liability to nonpatients. The dissent would affirm the trial court’s judgment for the physician.