Frankeny v. District Hospital Partners, LP

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that a consumer bringing claims under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act against a medical service provider need not prove intentional misrepresentation, knowledge, or an entrepreneurial nexus. The court concluded that Rachel Frankeny presented sufficient evidence that the hospital may have misrepresented or failed to disclose that a first-year resident would perform part of her tonsillectomy, and that the information was material. The court reversed summary judgment for the hospital and remanded for trial.

Holdings

1. A consumer need not prove that a merchant intentionally or knowingly represented that goods or services possessed characteristics, standards, qualities, grades, styles, or models that they did not in fact possess under D.C. Code § 28-3904(a) and (d).
2. A Consumer Protection Procedures Act claim against a medical service provider does not require proof of an entrepreneurial motive or entrepreneurial nexus.
3. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Frankeny, created a genuine dispute about whether the hospital misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the resident's role in performing the surgery; therefore, summary judgment was improper.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a consumer asserting District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act claims under D.C. Code § 28-3904(a), (d), (e), and (f) must prove intentional or knowing misrepresentation.
2. Whether a Consumer Protection Procedures Act claim against a medical service provider requires an entrepreneurial motive or entrepreneurial nexus connecting the alleged misrepresentation to business or financial interests.
3. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether the hospital misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact about who would perform Frankeny's surgery.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded