A doctor improperly accessed medical records of thirteen women who were not his patients but whom he had met or encountered in social settings, online, or at work. The women sued the medical clinic that employed the doctor, seeking to hold it vicariously liable for the doctor’s conduct under the doctrine of respondeat superior. To do so, they must prove two things: (1) the doctor committed one or more torts against them and (2) he was acting within the scope of his employment when he committed the tort(s). The women claim the doctor committed two torts—invasion of privacy by intrusion into emotional solace and intentional infliction of emotional distress—and that he did so within the scope of his employment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the clinic, concluding that the women cannot prevail on the underlying tort claims and that, even if they could, the doctor was not acting within the scope of his employment.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana, in its June 5, 2024 Opinion, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, reaching three conclusions. First, while there are strong arguments for recognizing the tort of intrusion into emotional solace, at least in the context of medical-record snooping, that recognition must come from the Indiana Supreme Court. Second, the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress—despite its name—can be proven if the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress, and there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the doctor did so in this case, precluding summary judgment on that claim. Third, even though the clinic prohibited the doctor from accessing medical records for personal reasons, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the doctor was acting within the scope of his employment when he did so, precluding summary judgment on the issue of vicarious liability.
Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Claim
“Deaconess had complete control over Dr. Ledda’s record access and gave him the ability to view the records of people who weren’t his patients. Also, Dr. Ledda was improperly accessing records for more than eighteen months before
Deaconess learned of his misconduct. Deaconess didn’t even investigate Dr. Ledda’s record access after his former patient Mandy Ford complained in late 2020 that he had propositioned her. Such an investigation would have revealed
that Dr. Ledda improperly accessed Ford’s records, which likely would have resulted in a much earlier termination of Dr. Ledda’s employment. Finally, a HIPAA security expert opined that Deaconess should have and could have done more to monitor Dr. Ledda’s record access, especially after receiving Ford’s complaint. Tellingly, Deaconess doesn’t address the Ford situation or the expert’s opinion in its appellate brief. Despite the differences between this case and McKenzie, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Ledda’s improper record access arose naturally and predictably from his authorized activities. Therefore, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Deaconess on the Plaintiffs’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Source Harris v. Deaconess Hospital, Inc., Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-CT-47.
If someone accessed your medical records and was unauthorized to do so, or the access was otherwise improper, you should promptly consult with a medical malpractice lawyer in your state who may investigate your medical records claim for you and represent you or your loved one in an unauthorized access to medical records claim, if appropriate.
Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
