Alexa Harris v. Deaconess Hospital, Inc.
235 N.E.3d 224
Ind. Ct. App.2024Background
- Thirteen women sued Deaconess Hospital, Inc. after Dr. Akitto Ledda, a Deaconess physician, improperly accessed their medical records for personal reasons, despite not being their treating physician.
- Dr. Ledda's actions came to light after a complaint and subsequent implementation of software to detect unauthorized access; he was ultimately terminated when the extent of his privacy breaches was discovered.
- Plaintiffs alleged Dr. Ledda's conduct constituted invasion of privacy (intrusion into emotional solace) and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sought to hold Deaconess vicariously liable under respondeat superior.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Deaconess, concluding (1) Indiana does not recognize the tort of intrusion into emotional solace, (2) Dr. Ledda did not intend to inflict emotional distress, and (3) his actions were outside the scope of employment.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment as to the non-recognition of intrusion into emotional solace, but reversed in part, finding material factual disputes regarding both intentional infliction of emotional distress and whether Ledda acted within the scope of his employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recognition of tort: intrusion into emotional solace | Indiana should recognize this tort, especially given modern privacy threats | Indiana does not recognize this tort | Not recognized in Indiana; Supreme Court must decide |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Recklessness suffices; Ledda's actions were reckless | Intent to harm is required, not met | Recklessness suffices; factual dispute—no summary judgment |
| Scope of employment (respondeat superior) | Ledda’s record access was facilitated by workplace duties | Acts were unauthorized and against policy | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment |
| Summary judgment on all claims | Sufficient evidence for trial on both tort and vicarious liability | No grounds for trial, as above | Affirmed in part, reversed in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullison v. Medley, 570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991) (recognized IIED; interpreted invasion of privacy as requiring physical intrusion)
- Cmty. Health Network, Inc. v. McKenzie, 185 N.E.3d 368 (Ind. 2022) (scope of employment for medical-record snooping; employer liability)
- Cox v. Evansville Police Dep’t, 107 N.E.3d 453 (Ind. 2018) (scope of employment generally a factual question)