C.E. v. Prairie Fields Family Medicine
287 Neb. 667
| Neb. | 2014Background
- C.E. alleges Prairie Fields disclosed her HIV positive test to a third party, causing emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims.
- The district court dismissed the invasion claim as time-barred and granted Prairie Fields summary judgment on the distress claims.
- CE suspected a Prairie Fields employee disclosed the diagnosis; later discovery revealed Sara Sorensen transcribed CE’s records and Goertz/HIV rumor circumstantial connections emerged.
- Goertz claimed to have heard a rumor about CE's HIV status from unrelated sources; Sorensen denied knowing CE's medical information and testified she did not disclose it.
- CE presented circumstantial evidence suggesting a Prairie Fields employee disclosed the diagnosis, and Goertz learned of it within a day of CE learning her test results.
- The appellate court held the district court erred by concluding CE presented no competent evidence of a Prairie Fields disclosure and that summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that a Prairie Fields employee disclosed CE's HIV diagnosis | CE asserts disclosure by a Prairie Fields employee. | Prairie Fields argues no disclosure by its employees occurred. | Yes; factual dispute exists precluding summary judgment. |
| Whether CE's circumstantial evidence suffices to show tortious conduct | Circumstantial evidence supports inference of disclosure by Prairie Fields. | Circumstantial evidence is insufficient without direct proof. | Yes; circumstantial evidence, viewed most favorably to CE, can create triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 001, 256 Neb. 406, 591 N.W.2d 532 (1999) (circumstantial evidence can support a negligence inference)
- Herrera v. Fleming Cos., 265 Neb. 118, 655 N.W.2d 378 (2003) (circumstantial evidence must be probative of proximate cause)
- Ditloff v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 225 Neb. 375, 406 N.W.2d 101 (1987) (circumstantial evidence must be probative and not merely speculative)
- Green v. Box Butte General Hosp., 284 Neb. 243, 818 N.W.2d 589 (2012) (causation standards in negligence in Nebraska)
- Woodhouse Ford v. Laflan, 268 Neb. 722, 687 N.W.2d 672 (2004) (summary judgment standards and evaluating evidence)
- Selma Development v. Great Western Bank, 285 Neb. 37, 825 N.W.2d 215 (2013) (plain error and assignment of error considerations in appeals)