Court Holds DNA Testing Facility May Be Held Liable For False Paternity Test: In its July 21, 2022 Memorandum Opinion, the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Forth Forth (“Texas Appellate Court”) held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants in a case that alleged that the paternity DNA testing result reported by the defendants years earlier was false.
Background Facts
In August 2001, Robert Heck filed a suit affecting the parent–child relationship (SAPCR) to establish conservatorship of and child support for Matthew Wilson. In October 2001, the court in the SAPCR ordered a paternity test to determine whether Heck was Wilson’s biological father. The plaintiffs gave DNA samples to DNA Testing Centre. DNA Testing Centre performed a paternity test on the DNA samples. The results excluded Heck as being Wilson’s biological father. On November 12, 2001, Rita Chen, Ph.D. certified the paternity-test results. On December 6, 2001, the court in the SAPCR dismissed the SAPCR with prejudice based on the paternity-test results.
In 2019, one of Wilson’s relatives found a DNA match on Ancestry.com showing that the relative shared DNA with Heck’s family. Teresa Marie Shield (the mother of Matthew Wilson) contacted Heck about the DNA match, and the plaintiffs agreed to obtain a new DNA paternity test to determine if Heck was Wilson’s biological father. In July 2019, Shield, Heck, and Wilson each provided DNA samples for the new paternity test. The new paternity test, which was signed on July 23, 2019, showed a 99.999999998% probability that Heck was Wilson’s biological father.
On September 23, 2019, shortly after obtaining the 2019 paternity-test results, the plaintiffs sued DNA Testing Centre and others for violation of the DTPA; fraud; negligence, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation; negligent hiring, supervision, and management; and breach of contract. The defendants filed for summary judgment, arguing: (1) that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by limitations, (2) that the plaintiffs’ claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the judgment in the SAPCR, (3) that the plaintiffs should be collaterally estopped from bringing their claims, (4) that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by Family Code Section 160.367(e), and (5) that the plaintiffs’ DTPA claim failed because Texas does not recognize an implied warranty claim.
The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Texas Appellate Court Opinion
The Texas Appellate Court stated that under the general rule that a cause of action accrues when facts giving rise to a cause of action come into existence, the statute of limitations for Shield’s and Heck’s fraud and breach of contract claims expired on December 6, 2005, and the statute of limitations for their remaining claims expired on December 6, 2003. Because Wilson was a minor when the facts giving rise to his causes of action came into existence, his causes of action accrued on February 2, 2007, when he turned eighteen.
Discovery Rule
However, the discovery rule defers the accrual date until the claimant discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the facts giving rise to the cause of action. Deferring the accrual date delays the commencement of the limitations period rather than tolling the limitations period once it has commenced. The discovery rule applies to a cause of action if (1) the injury incurred is inherently undiscoverable, and (2) the evidence of the injury is objectively verifiable. An injury’s nature renders the injury unlikely to be discovered if the type of injury, rather than the plaintiff’s particular injury, is not likely to be discovered through reasonable diligence within the limitations period.
The Texas Appellate Court stated: “Here, the summary-judgment record does not establish that Appellants discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, their injuries within the limitations period … The evidence cited by Bio-Synthesis and DNA Testing Centre in this case—a sentence hinting that Shield may have subjectively questioned the results of the 2001 paternity test—likewise falls short of conclusive proof. Nothing elevates this sentence beyond the level of mere personal suspicion or surmise … Here, in contrast, the question relating to paternity was answered (although, perhaps incorrectly) by the 2001 paternity test. There is no evidence in the summary-judgment record proving that Appellants should have questioned that answer up until the time that Wilson’s relative found a DNA match on Ancestry.com.”
The Texas Appellate Court held: “We conclude that reasonable minds could differ about the date that Appellants discovered Bio-Synthesis’s and DNA Testing Centre’s alleged misconduct in performing the 2001 paternity test because the summary-judgment record does not prove that Appellants knew in 2001 that the 2001 paternity-test results were incorrect.”
The Texas Appellate Court further held: “The dispute concerning Appellees’ alleged misconduct in performing the 2001 paternity test was not at issue in the SAPCR. The dismissal in the SAPCR does not prohibit granting Appellants relief against Appellees relating to their alleged misconduct. Therefore, Appellants’ current suit does not seek to avoid the SAPCR judgment’s effect … Accordingly, we hold that Bio-Synthesis and DNA Testing Centre did not prove their collateral attack defense because Appellants do not seek to avoid the SAPCR judgment’s effect.”
With regard to the collateral estoppel argument, the Texas Appellate Court held: “Collateral estoppel would bar Appellants’ claims only if Appellants sought to litigate facts in the current suit that were fully and fairly litigated in the SAPCR. In the SAPCR, Appellants litigated facts relating to Wilson’s paternity, conservatorship, and support. In contrast, in the current suit, Appellants seek to litigate facts related to Appellees’ alleged misconduct in performing the 2001 paternity test. The record does not suggest that facts related to the 2001 paternity test’s accuracy or Appellees’ alleged conduct in performing the paternity test were raised, litigated, or decided in the SAPCR. Accordingly, we hold that collateral estoppel does not bar the parties from litigating the facts at issue in the current suit.”
Furthermore, “Appellants do not challenge the SAPCR court’s paternity adjudication; instead, Appellants allege claims relating to Appellees’ alleged misconduct in performing the 2001 paternity test. Accordingly, we hold that Family Code Section 160.637(e) does not apply to Appellants’ claims.”
Source Shield v. Bio-Synthesis, Inc., No. 02-21-00160-CV.
If you or a family member may be the victim of a false paternity test result in the United States, you should promptly find a false paternity test result attorney in your state who may investigate your false paternity test result claim for you and represent you or your family member in a false paternity test result case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website to be connected with false paternity test result lawyers in your state, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.