Cannady v. St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center
537 S.W.3d 259
Ark.2018Background
- Anne Pressly, a TV news anchor, was assaulted and later died; her mother Patricia Cannady sued over unauthorized access to Pressly’s medical records by hospital-affiliated individuals.
- Defendants: St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center (hospital), physician Jay Holland (not an employee), and employees Candida Griffin and Sarah Miller (viewed records); Griffin and Miller pled guilty to violating federal health-information law.
- Cannady alleged invasion of privacy and the tort of outrage; invasion-of-privacy claims were extinguished by the decedent’s death, but Cannady pursued outrage on her own behalf.
- On first appeal (Cannady I), the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed dismissal of the outrage claim and remanded for factual determination whether conduct supported outrage and whether St. Vincent could be vicariously liable.
- On remand, the circuit court denied summary judgment on the outrage claim (finding material factual disputes) but granted St. Vincent summary judgment on vicarious liability (employees acted outside scope). Cannady appealed; defendants cross-appealed the denial on outrage.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of St. Vincent on vicarious-liability grounds (direct appeal) and dismissed the defendants’ cross-appeal as not properly before the court (interlocutory denial of summary judgment not final under Rule 54(b)(1)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law-of-the-case barred St. Vincent from arguing employees acted outside scope of employment | Cannady: law-of-the-case prevents relitigation; earlier appeal already resolved vicarious-liability question | St. Vincent: facts/posture changed (depositions), earlier appeal did not decide scope-of-employment; argument is preserved | Court: law-of-the-case inapplicable; record developed and scope was not previously decided |
| Whether St. Vincent is vicariously liable for Griffin’s and Miller’s unauthorized access | Cannady: employer may be liable if employee misconduct was foreseeable or within scope | St. Vincent: employees violated policy and federal law for personal reasons; actions were unexpected, unauthorized, and outside scope; employer punished them | Court: summary judgment for St. Vincent on vicarious liability (no genuine issue; actions outside scope; employer not liable as matter of law) |
| Whether the alleged conduct supports a tort-of-outrage claim under Arkansas law | Cannady: viewing records caused extreme emotional distress and supports outrage claim on her own behalf | Defendants: conduct is not the extreme, outrageous conduct required; Arkansas does not recognize an outrage claim based on conduct directed at a third party; Cannady was not present | Court: denial of summary judgment on outrage claim left for factual resolution; defendants’ motions denied (but cross-appeal dismissed as interlocutory) |
| Whether defendants’ cross-appeal of denial of summary judgment on outrage was properly before the Court | Defendants: seek review of denial to resolve legal sufficiency now | Cannady: circuit court certified under Rule 54(b)(1) allowing appeal | Court: cross-appeal dismissed — denial of summary judgment is interlocutory and not a final decision under Rule 54(b)(1), so appeal improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannady v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr., 423 S.W.3d 548 (Ark. 2012) (prior opinion reversing dismissal of outrage claim and remanding)
- Repking v. Lokey, 377 S.W.3d 211 (Ark. 2010) (summary-judgment standard and appellate review)
- Green v. George’s Farms, Inc., 378 S.W.3d 715 (Ark. 2011) (law-of-the-case doctrine principles)
- Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Padgett, 407 S.W.2d 728 (Ark. 1966) (respondeat-superior may apply when employee acts are foreseeable)
- BPS, Inc. v. Parker, 47 S.W.3d 858 (Ark. 2001) (denial of summary judgment review when trial court effectively decides a defense)
- Williams v. Peoples Bank of Paragould, 225 S.W.3d 389 (Ark. 2006) (denials of summary judgment are interlocutory and generally not certifiable under Rule 54(b)(1))
- Anglin v. Johnson Reg’l Med. Ctr., 289 S.W.3d 28 (Ark. 2008) (summary judgment as a matter of law)
- Crockett v. Essex, 19 S.W.3d 585 (Ark. 2000) (elements and high threshold for tort of outrage)