Quick Summary
Anita Chanko (plaintiff) sued ABC News and The New York and Presbyterian Hospital (defendants) after a documentary broadcast included footage of her husband’s death without consent. The main issue was whether this constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of physician-patient confidentiality.
The Court ruled that while the broadcast was not sufficiently outrageous for emotional distress claims, it did potentially breach confidentiality, leading to a partial reinstatement of the lawsuit against the hospital and physician.
Facts of the Case
Mark Chanko (defendant) was involved in an accident and taken to The New York and Presbyterian Hospital (defendant) for emergency treatment. During his treatment, a crew from ABC News (defendant) was filming a documentary series inside the hospital but did not inform Mark or his wife, Anita Chanko (plaintiff), about the filming or obtain their consent.
Anita, unaware of the recording, later recognized scenes on television that included the filming of her husband’s death and the moment she was informed of his passing. The footage was edited to blur Mark’s image and omit his name, but the emotional impact on the family was profound, leading Anita to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Procedural History
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
- Anita Chanko appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the filming and broadcasting of Mark Chanko’s emergency treatment and death without consent support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of physician-patient confidentiality.
Rule of Law
The physician-patient privilege protects confidential medical information obtained during treatment and forbids its disclosure without consent, under CPLR 4504(a). Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct so outrageous as to exceed all bounds of decency in a civilized community.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found that while ABC News’ actions in broadcasting Mark Chanko’s death might be considered offensive by most, they were not so extreme as to meet the legal standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court emphasized that the footage aired was edited to protect Mark’s identity, with his image blurred and name omitted.
However, regarding the claim of breach of physician-patient confidentiality, the Court concluded that sufficient allegations were made against the hospital and treating physician for allowing the film crew to record and later view footage that potentially included confidential medical information.
Conclusion
The Court modified the Appellate Division order to reinstate the breach of physician-patient confidentiality cause of action against the hospital and treating physician but affirmed the dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Key Takeaways
- The Court requires a very high standard to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Physician-patient confidentiality extends to all types of medical information, not just that which is deemed embarrassing or secret.
- The duty of confidentiality can lead to a breach claim if confidential information is disclosed without consent to those not involved in medical treatment.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What defines the threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress in a legal context?
The threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) requires that the defendant’s conduct is so extreme and outrageous that it goes beyond the bounds of decency accepted by society. The behavior must be more than annoying or offensive; it must be atrociously and intolerably abusive. Furthermore, the plaintiff must experience severe emotional distress as a direct result.
- For example: A debt collection agency falsely informs an individual that their child has been kidnapped to coerce payment, leading to severe psychological trauma for the parent.
How does physician-patient confidentiality extend beyond face-to-face interactions within medical settings?
Physician-patient confidentiality encompasses all forms of communication and information sharing relating to a patient’s healthcare, including records, discussions, and even visual data obtained during medical treatment. This duty extends to any platform or medium, thus prohibiting disclosure of confidential information without explicit consent, barring specific legal exceptions.
- For example: A physiotherapist discusses a high-profile athlete’s injury with the press without consent, violating confidentiality even though no written records were shared.
Under what circumstances might a third party be liable for breach of physician-patient confidentiality?
A third party can be liable for breach of physician-patient confidentiality if they unlawfully obtain or disclose private medical information without consent. Both the unauthorized acquisition and dissemination can give rise to liability, especially if the third party knew or should have known that they were handling privileged information.
- For example: An IT technician performing maintenance on a hospital computer system copies patient records and shares them with a friend who is not involved in the patient’s care.
References
Was this case brief helpful?