Coffee v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1972
• Docket Number: DONNELL-DOUGLAS
• Citation: 105 Cal.Rptr. 358,503 P.2d 1366,8 Cal.3d 551
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 503 P.2d 1366 Robert D. COFFEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. McCORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant, Alan Gray et al., Defendants and Respondents. L.A. 30024

Page 358

105 Cal.Rptr. 358

8 Cal.3d 551, 503 P.2d 1366

Robert D. COFFEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. McDONNELL-DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant Alan Gray et al., Defendants and Respondents.

L.A. 30024.

Supreme Court of California

Dec. 22, 1972.

Young & Young, W. Herbert Young and Walter H. Young, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Haight, Lyon & Smith, Michael J. Bonesteel and Henry F. Walker, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant and for defendants and respondents.

SULLIVAN, Justice.

In this action for damages for personal injuries defendant McDonnell-Douglas Corporation ¹ appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and from an order denying defendant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Plaintiff Robert Coffee, after retiring from the United States Air Force in January 1966, applied for a position as a pilot with defendant, a manufacturer of aircraft. Defendant corporation required each of its pilot applicants to undergo a pre-employment physical examination to establish his physical fitness for the job. Accordingly, on July 26, 1966, plaintiff underwent a physical examination at defendant's Long Beach medical clinic. Among other things, the examination consisted of a review of plaintiff's medical history, extensive X-rays, urinalysis, an electrocardiogram and a blood test. Coffee, examined by Dr. Gray, one of defendant's doctor-employees, was told that the examination could not be completed until the results of the X-rays and laboratory tests were received, about one week later. However, Dr. Gray signed the examination form on the day of the examination indicating that Coffee was qualified for duties as a pilot, with the understanding that medical approval would be withdrawn if the laboratory tests or X-rays produced any negative results.

Some time later plaintiff was informed by Mr. Heimerdinger, the chief pilot in flight operations for defendant, that he had passed the physical examination and that he was acceptable for employment as a pilot. On August 9, 1966, Coffee began work.

Seven months later, on March 9, 1967, plaintiff collapsed from exhaustion after returning from an extended flight for defendant. He was admitted to the Long Beach Naval Hospital where he remained for approximately 10 days. Dr. Snyder, a hematologist, examined him and found that he had severe anemia, his kidney function was impaired, and that the bone structure of his ribs and skull had deteriorated significantly. Plaintiff's condition was diagnosed as multiple myeloma, a disease commonly referred to as cancer of the bone marrow. Dr. Snyder informed plaintiff that he had three to six months to live unless he responded to drug therapy.

Plaintiff responded favorably to the ensuing medical treatment. Initially he received several blood transfusions. He also began the daily use of drugs which caused nausea and resulting weight loss. Because the drugs prescribed made him more susceptible to infection, he also contracted hepatitis. By the fall of 1967, his condition was described as in a state of remission and the nausea stopped. At the time of the trial in November 1970, his condition was still in remission and he had been able to return to work for defendant.

Plaintiff commenced the instant action against McDonnell-Douglas and its three doctor-employees (Waters, Gray, ² and Ruetman) alleging that defendants required plaintiff to undergo a pre-employment physical examination to determine whether or not he was physically fit to be a test pilot and that defendants performed the physical examination negligently in that they either 'knew or should have known of his true condition (i.e., multiple myeloma) and negligently failed to disclose' it, or that they were so negligent in the performance of the examination that they failed to discover the presence of the disease. As a proximate result of defendants' negligence, plaintiff averred, his 'disease progressed and became aggravated and spread because plaintiff was without medical treatment,' thereby reducing his life expectancy, lessening his resistance to other diseases, weakening his bone structure and causing loss of wages.

Two theories of liability were developed at trial: the first concerned the negligence of the doctors as agents and employees of defendant corporation, and the second theory focused on the negligence of other corporate employees, independently of the doctors' negligence. Since this appeal concerns only the latter theory, we shall now examine in the light most favorable to plaintiff the evidence relative to the independent negligence of the corporation.

The evidence shows that McDonnell-Douglas as a matter of corporate policy required each of its prospective employees to undergo a physical examination, and that plaintiff was given such an examination on July 26, 1966. Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Gray, an employee of the defendant corporation, and approved by him as physically fit for duties as a pilot. In the course of the examination a blood sample was drawn from plaintiff. The sample was sent to an independent medical laboratory on the same day and a blood test report was returned by mail to defendant's medical clinic on July 28, 1966. The blood test report was received by a secretary at defendant's medical clinic, was time-stamped, and filed. Neither Dr. Gray, the examining physician, nor Dr. Waters, the supervising physician, nor any competent medical person, reviewed or evaluated the report that had been submitted.

Dr. Waters, the supervising physician of defendant's medical clinic, testified that the policy requiring blood tests was established by the corporate office in Santa Monica. Blood tests for pilots, he explained, were necessary for the protection of the corporate employer, the pilot himself, and the public. A person employed as a pilot, he stated further, could not perform his duties unless he had 'normal blood' because of the requirement that pilots fly defendant's aircraft at high altitudes. Dr. Waters also explained that, in response to the corporate policy requiring blood tests, the procedure for handling blood test reports was established by his predecessor. That procedure, according to Dr. Waters, allowed reports to be filed without evaluation by a physician.

The blood test report, produced at trial, indicated that Coffee's blood was in the low normal or slightly below normal range for hemoglobin ³ and that the sedimentation rate was abnormally high. ⁴ An elevated sedimentation rate would indicate, according to the medical testimony, the presence of an inflammatory condition or even the presence of a serious disease, although it would not indicate the presence of any particular disease. Dr. Waters stated that had he seen the report, he 'would have considered it high,' and 'would certainly want to know why this is high.' In other words, the knowledge of an elevated sedimentation rate would prompt further inquiry. Additionally, Dr. Waters stated that had he seen the results of the report, plaintiff would not have been approved for employment as a pilot.

Medical testimony also established that plaintiff had multiple myeloma at the time of the examination, that it is an incurable disease, but that had the presence of the disease been discovered earlier, plaintiff would not have suffered the extent of injuries that he did.

The trial judge instructed the jury that the doctors owed plaintiff the duty to meet professional standards only if plaintiff was their patient and that plaintiff had the burden to prove the doctor-patient relationship. If the jury found that no doctor-patient relationship existed, then the doctors, as agents and employees of McDonnell-Douglas, owed a duty to refrain from injuring plaintiff and to use reasonable care. If the jury found the doctors had violated this duty, liability would be imputed to McDonnell-Douglas under the doctrine of Respondeat superior. The trial judge also instructed as follows: 'It is established by the evidence in this case that McDonnell-Douglas voluntarily undertook the medical examination of the plaintiff to ascertain if the plaintiff was physically fit to be employed by McDonnell-Douglas as a pilot. Although an employer is under no general duty to ascertain whether an employee is physically fit for the job, nevertheless if the employer undertakes and assumes such a duty the employer is liable if the employer performs it negligently.'

The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against McDonnell- Douglas in the amount of $200,000, but exonerated the three defendant-doctors. However, the trial court conditionally granted defendant a new trial on the issue of damages explaining that 'the damages were excessive for the reason that although plaintiff's condition temporarily worsened as a result of defendants' (sic) negligence . . . plaintiff's life expectancy was not affected.' Plaintiff consented to a reduced award of $100,000 in damages; the motion for a new trial was thereupon denied; and the judgment was ordered reduced to $100,000. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, not ruled on by the trial court, was denied by operation of law. (Code Civ.Proc., § 629.) This appeal by defendant followed. ⁵

Defendant makes two contentions before us: (1) That it owed no duty to plaintiff, and (2) that the verdict in favor of the defendant doctors is inconsistent with the verdict against the defendant corporation.

I

An employer generally owes no duty to his prospective employees to ascertain whether they are physically fit for the job they seek, but where he assumes such duty, he is liable if he performs it negligently. (McGuigan v. Southern Pacific Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 482, 497, 277 P.2d 444; McGuigan v. Southern Pac. Co. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 704, 718, 247 P.2d 415; Gunston v. United States (N.D.Cal.1964) 235 F.Supp. 349, 352, cert. den. 384 U.S. 993, 86 S.Ct. 1904, 16...