Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1998

Kawaauhau v. Geiger

523 U.S. 57 | 118 S. Ct. 974 | 140 L. Ed. 2d 90 | 1998 U.S. LEXIS 1595

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that § 523(a)(6) bars discharge only for debts resulting from an intentional injury—not merely an intentional act carried out negligently or recklessly.

Background

In 1983, Margaret Kawaauhau sought treatment from Dr. Paul Geiger for a foot injury that posed a risk of infection. Although Geiger knew intravenous penicillin would be more effective, he prescribed oral penicillin, testifying that he understood Kawaauhau wanted to minimize treatment costs. After leaving on a business trip, Geiger returned, canceled a proposed transfer to an infectious-disease specialist, and stopped antibiotics because he believed the infection had subsided. Kawaauhau’s condition worsened, and her right leg was amputated below the knee.

Kawaauhau and her husband won a medical-malpractice judgment of approximately $355,000 against Geiger, who lacked malpractice insurance. After the Kawaauhaus garnished his wages, Geiger filed for bankruptcy. They argued that the malpractice judgment could not be discharged because it was a debt for a “willful and malicious injury” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

The Bankruptcy Court held the debt nondischargeable, concluding that Geiger’s treatment fell far below the appropriate standard of care and was therefore willful and malicious. The District Court affirmed. The Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed, holding that § 523(a)(6) reaches intentional torts, not injuries caused only by negligent or reckless conduct. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve a conflict among the circuits.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a medical-malpractice debt based on negligent or reckless treatment is a nondischargeable debt for “willful and malicious injury” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Holding

No. Section 523(a)(6) applies only when the debtor intended the injury itself, not merely when the debtor intentionally performed an act that caused injury. Debts arising from negligent or reckless injuries are dischargeable.

Reasoning

The statutory text places “willful” directly before “injury.” That wording requires a deliberate or intentional injury, rather than an intentional act that happens to result in injury. If Congress had meant to cover intentional acts causing unintended harm, it could have used language such as “willful acts that cause injury,” or expressly included reckless or negligent injuries.

The Court read the provision against the traditional distinction between intentional torts and negligence or recklessness. An intentional tort ordinarily requires intent to bring about the consequences of an act, not simply intent to engage in the act. Thus, a debt falls within § 523(a)(6) only when it arises from conduct aimed at causing injury to another person or property.

The Kawaauhaus’ broader reading would sweep too widely. Many ordinary accidents involve intentional acts followed by unintended injury—for example, a driver intentionally turning left without checking for oncoming traffic. A knowing breach of contract could also be characterized as an intentional act causing harm. That result would conflict with the settled principle that exceptions to bankruptcy discharge must be narrowly confined to those Congress has plainly expressed.

Other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code reinforced the narrow reading. Section 523(a)(9) specifically excepts from discharge debts for death or personal injury caused by unlawful intoxicated driving, while § 523(a)(12) expressly addresses certain malicious or reckless conduct. Reading § 523(a)(6) to include all reckless injuries would make these more specific provisions unnecessarily redundant.

The Court limited its earlier decision in Tinker v. Colwell to its setting: a traditional intentional, trespassory tort. Although Tinker contained broad language about intentional wrongful acts, its holding involved conduct classified at common law as intentional trespass. Later decisions likewise showed that intentional conversion may be nondischargeable, but negligent or reckless conduct does not establish a willful and malicious injury.

Geiger may have intentionally selected less effective treatment, but the malpractice judgment rested on deficient medical care rather than on an intent to injure Kawaauhau. Because neither negligent nor reckless infliction of injury satisfies § 523(a)(6), the judgment debt was dischargeable. Whether malpractice debts should receive different treatment is a policy choice for Congress, not the Court.