JOHN SMITH VS. ARVIND R. DATLA, M.D.(L-1527-15, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
164 A.3d 1110
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (identified pseudonymously) alleged that his nephrologist, Dr. Datla, disclosed his HIV-positive status to an unidentified third party during an emergent bedside consultation on July 25, 2013.
- Plaintiff filed suit on July 1, 2015, pleading invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts), medical malpractice (breach of confidentiality/standard of care), and a statutory claim under New Jersey's AIDS Assistance Act (N.J.S.A. 26:5C-1 to -14).
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing all claims were time-barred by the one-year defamation statute; the trial court rejected that motion and allowed amendment.
- The trial court held all three claims were governed by the two-year personal-injury statute of limitations (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2); defendants obtained leave to appeal that interlocutory denial.
- The Appellate Division accepted the facts as pleaded and reviewed de novo whether the one-year or two-year limitations period applies to each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What statute of limitations governs invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts? | Two-year personal-injury period (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2) because the disclosure injured personhood/privacy. | One-year defamation period (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-3), analogizing disclosure claims to false-light/defamation. | Two-year period applies; disclosure of truthful private medical facts is an "injury to the person." |
| What statute governs a private cause of action under the AIDS Assistance Act for improper disclosure of HIV status? | Two-year personal-injury period; Act protects a personal privacy interest and each wrongful disclosure is separately actionable. | One-year period by analogy to defamation/single-publication rule. | Two-year period applies; the Act is remedial, protects personhood/privacy, and treats each disclosure as a separate offense. |
| What statute governs medical malpractice based on improper disclosure of confidential medical information? | Two-year medical-malpractice/personal-injury period; breach of confidentiality is negligence causing personal injury. | One-year period because claim arises from publication of words like defamation/false light. | Two-year period applies; breach of confidentiality is a deviation from standard of care and a personal-injury claim. |
| Are disclosure-based privacy claims analogous to false-light/defamation when the disclosed facts are true? | No — truthful disclosure of private facts implicates privacy/personhood and aligns with intrusion/discrimination-type harms. | Yes — publication-based harms should follow the one-year defamation rule. | No — when disclosure is truthful (not false or misleading), the proper analogy is injury to personhood (two years), not defamation (one year). |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumbauskas v. Cantor, 138 N.J. 173 (N.J. 1994) (intrusion-on-seclusion privacy claims are governed by two-year personal-injury limitations and framework for distinguishing privacy torts)
- Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282 (N.J. 1993) (limitations analysis focuses on "nature of the injury" and applying one limitations period to a class of claims)
- McGrogan v. Till, 167 N.J. 414 (N.J. 2001) (test for choosing the applicable statute of limitations based on the nature of the cause of action)
- Swan v. Boardwalk Regency, 407 N.J. Super. 108 (App. Div. 2009) (false-light privacy claims held subject to one-year defamation statute when analogous to defamation)
- Romaine v. Kallinger, 109 N.J. 282 (N.J. 1988) (elements for public disclosure of private facts privacy tort)
- Komodi v. Picciano, 217 N.J. 387 (N.J. 2014) (elements of a medical-malpractice claim)
- Canessa v. J.I. Kislak, Inc., 97 N.J. Super. 327 (Law Div. 1967) (name/likeness privacy claims governed by six-year limitations)