DeMarco v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.
836 S.E.2d 322
N.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- DeMarco, a 76-year-old OWCP beneficiary, requested her medical record from prior annual evaluations maintained by defendants (hospital and affiliated physicians).
- A Problem List in her chart contained 2011 entries diagnosing gonorrhea; DeMarco denies ever having that diagnosis.
- Dr. Bresnahan admitted the 2011 entries were erroneous, annotated them as "entered in error/cancelled," but defendants refused DeMarco’s repeated requests to remove the entries entirely under HIPAA and their privacy policy.
- In 2018 defendants included the annotated entries when sending DeMarco’s records to OWCP; DeMarco then sued for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), intentional infliction of emotional distress (abandoned on appeal), and defamation.
- The trial court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing all claims with prejudice; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of defamation, reversed dismissal of negligence and NIED, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DeMarco pleaded a viable negligence claim based on defendants' handling of erroneous medical-record entries | DeMarco alleged defendants owed a HIPAA- and common-law-based duty to keep records accurate and to reasonably correct errors; annotations instead of erasure breached that duty causing harm | Hospital argued no breach as a matter of law; relied on precedent that honest diagnostic mistakes are not actionable and claimed records custody | Reversed dismissal. Court held complaint adequately pleaded duty (HIPAA/privacy policy sufficed to plead standard), breach, causation, and damages for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes; case proceeds. |
| Whether DeMarco pleaded NIED arising from the same facts | DeMarco alleged defendants’ negligence foreseeably caused severe emotional distress manifested in diagnosable symptoms | Defendants argued emotional-distress claim insufficiently pleaded or untethered to compensable injury | Reversed dismissal. Court held NIED elements adequately pleaded given viable negligence claim and specific allegations of severe emotional harms. |
| Whether annotated entries in the Problem List constituted actionable defamation | DeMarco argued annotated entries implied she had been diagnosed and treated for a venereal disease and thus were defamatory | Defendants argued entries were corrected/annotated and therefore not a false statement of fact | Affirmed dismissal. Court found the annotations expressly indicated the entries were "entered in error/cancelled," so no false statement was pleaded; truth (or admission of falsity) is a defense to defamation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., 368 N.C. 440 (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Acosta v. Byrum, 180 N.C. App. 562 (recognizing HIPAA and hospital privacy policies may be used to plead a standard of care for negligence)
- Blanton v. Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 319 N.C. 372 (hospitals and physicians owe patients a duty to exercise reasonable care)
- Hutchens v. Hankins, 63 N.C. App. 1 (elements of common-law negligence)
- Thornburg v. Long, 178 N.C. 589 (physician not liable for honest diagnostic mistake)
- Sorrels v. M.Y.B. Hospitality Ventures of Asheville, 334 N.C. 669 (elements and severe-illness requirement for negligent infliction of emotional distress)
- Craven v. Cope, 188 N.C. App. 814 (defamation requires a false statement of fact about plaintiff published to a third party)