134 N.E.3d 435
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background:
- On March 1, 2018 Amanda Henry received radiographic imaging at Community Hospital; on March 4 her employer showed her digital images of those x-rays.
- Henry later learned the employer was married to the radiologic technician who performed the imaging.
- Henry sued Community, alleging a duty to protect health-record privacy, that a Community workforce member shared her protected health information with that member’s spouse, and that Henry suffered damages.
- Community moved to dismiss; the trial court treated the motion as a Rule 12(C) judgment-on-the-pleadings and dismissed with prejudice, citing (1) no private right under HIPAA and (2) Indiana’s non-recognition of the public-disclosure-of-private-facts tort.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed, holding a common-law duty of confidentiality exists, HIPAA may inform the standard of care, and Henry’s complaint pleaded sufficient negligence-based facts to survive dismissal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HIPAA may inform the standard of care in a common-law negligence claim | Henry: HIPAA can be used to establish the required standard of care though it creates no private cause of action | Community: Lack of a private HIPAA right forecloses reliance on HIPAA to create duties | Court: Common-law duty of confidentiality exists and HIPAA/regulations may inform the standard of care |
| Whether Indiana recognizes the tort of public disclosure of private facts | Henry: Complaint implicates invasion-of-privacy theories including disclosure | Community: Indiana has not adopted the Disclosure tort; therefore claim fails | Court: Did not decide adoption here; trial court erred to dismiss on that basis alone; precedent shows Indiana has declined to adopt Disclosure |
| Whether the complaint pleaded a viable negligence-based claim (sufficiency under Rule 12(C)) | Henry: Complaint alleges duty, breach (employee shared PHI), and damages — adequate under notice pleading | Community: No statutory private remedy and dismissal appropriate | Court: Complaint states operative facts for negligence claim; dismissal improper; reverse and remand |
| Procedural conversion of 12(B)(6) to 12(C) | Henry: Motion to dismiss was untimely and should have been denied | Community: Court may treat later motion as 12(C) for efficiency | Court: Treated motion as 12(C) and reviewed de novo; did not penalize approach for judicial economy |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrne v. Avery Ctr. for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 102 A.3d 32 (Conn. 2014) (HIPAA may inform tort standard of care)
- Doe v. Methodist Hosp., 690 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. 1997) (Indiana declined to adopt public-disclosure-of-private-facts tort)
- F.B.C. v. MDwise, Inc., 122 N.E.3d 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (recent Indiana appellate discussion on Disclosure tort)
- Schlarb v. Henderson, 4 N.E.2d 205 (Ind. 1936) (recognition of historical common-law duty of confidentiality in medical context)
- Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. 1990) (ethical rules and Hippocratic tradition support confidentiality duty)
- G.F. v. St. Catherine Hosp., Inc., 124 N.E.3d 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (tort claims for negligent dissemination of patient information are cognizable as ordinary negligence)