J.H. v. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc.
19 N.E.3d 811
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- J.H. was treated at St. Vincent Stress Center for depression on Aug. 23, 2010.
- An emergency contact, E.H., was designated on an Authorization form despite J.H.’s general privacy wishes.
- A center employee informed E.H. by voicemail that J.H. was hospitalized and safe.
- J.H. learned of the contact with E.H. and became upset, later remaining for further treatment.
- On Mar. 11, 2011, J.H. sued St. Vincent for invasion of privacy, breach of statutory duty, negligence, and IIED; summary judgment was granted for some claims and denied for others on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invasion of privacy by public disclosure | J.H. contends St. Vincent disclosed private facts to E.H. | Disclosures were not ‘publicity’ and did not concern private facts; consent implied by forms. | Summary judgment affirmed for St. Vincent on this claim. |
| Breach of statutory duty under IC 16-39-2-6 | J.H. did not consent to disclosure; statute prohibited release of mental health information. | Release to E.H. was consented to and emergency exception applied. | Summary judgment reversed; issues of consent and excusability remain for trial. |
| Negligence (training/supervision regarding confidentiality) | St. Vincent failed to train/supervise causing disclosure losses and damages. | Plaintiff cannot show proximate cause without expert testimony; undisputed mental illness pre-existed. | Summary judgment reversed; genuine fact issue on proximate cause exists. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | St. Vincent’s disclosure to E.H. was outrageous and caused severe distress in light of J.H.’s privacy wishes. | Conduct not extreme or outrageous as a matter of law; no intent to harm shown. | Summary judgment denied; genuine issues of material fact exist as to outrageousness and recklessness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Methodist Hosp., 690 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. 1997) (describes the four privacy torts and publicity element in invasion of privacy)
- Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp., 754 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (publicity to two people not actionable under privacy torts)
- Beckerman v. Gordon, 614 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (emergency concept under confidentiality disclosures)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (summary-judgment standard and burdens when negating claims)
- Jarboe v. Landmark Newspapers of Ind., Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994) (mandatory showing to negate a claim at summary judgment)
- Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (causation proof in negligence may require expert testimony)
- Curry v. Whitaker, 943 N.E.2d 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (IIED standards described as rigorous)
- Ledbetter v. Ross, 725 N.E.2d 120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (restatement guidance on extreme/outrageous conduct)
- Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (restatement-based outline of IIED elements)