Walgreen Co. v. Abigail E. Hinchy
21 N.E.3d 99
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Hinchey maintained a sexual relationship with Peterson; she used Walgreen pharmacy services for prescriptions including birth control.
- Walgreen pharmacist Withers, dating Peterson, accessed Hinchy’s prescription profile at work for personal reasons.
- Walgreen’s investigation confirmed a HIPAA/privacy violation; Withers received a warning and retraining.
- Hinchy sued Walgreen and Withers; Walgreen sought summary judgment on vicarious liability theories.
- A four-day trial awarded Hinchy $1.8 million; Walgreen and Withers were found jointly liable for most of the damages after apportionment.
- Court affirmed on all appealed issues, including liability, ex parte brief handling, jury instructions, and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondeat superior and negligent retention summary judgment | Hinchy argues issue should go to jury; some acts within scope. | Walgreen seeks judgment as a matter of law. | Denied summary judgment; jury to decide scope of employment. |
| Ex parte communications in trial brief | Brief filed under seal; Walgreen not served. | Trial court could review brief; no reversible error. | Not reversible error; better practice to share brief but no taint to jury. |
| Jury instructions on respondeat superior | Instructions correctly state law; encompass scope analysis. | Instruction 8/10 misstate law about “incidental.” | Instructions deemed correct; no reversal. |
| Jury instructions on public disclosure of private facts; Beaumont standard | Indiana adopts Beaumont “particular public” standard. | Beaumont standard not adopted? | Instruction 11 properly stated law adopting Beaumont standard. |
| Damages amount and support | Award supported by emotional distress and продолжed harms; mischaracterization not proper. | Damage award excessive or improper factors. | Not excessive; supported by evidence; affirmed with 20% shift to Peterson. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008) (defines scope of employment and vicarious liability principles)
- Restatement (Third) of Agency, § 7.07, Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 () (employee acts within scope when performing work or under employer's control)
- Celebration Fireworks, Inc. v. Smith, 727 N.E.2d 450 (Ind. 2000) (scope-incidental standard referenced in agency discussion)
- Ingram v. City of Indianapolis, 759 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (employee actions within scope may be for jury to decide)
- Doe v. Lafayette School Corp., 846 N.E.2d 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishes when employer not liable for personal actions)