On April 13, 2022 our unanimous SCOTSI handed down its decision (Opinion by CJ Rush) in Community Health Network v. McKenzie. The litigation arose after “medical records coordinator” Katrina Gray improperly accessed and disclosed information from the confidential medical records of Heather McKenzie and several of Heather’s family members¹. Katrina was then in the employ of Community Health Network.
Katrina had a “family feud” type grievance against Heather, who was the ex-wife of Katrina’s stepson. Katrina’s apparent motive was revenge as opposed to monetary gain.
When Community learned of Katrina’s unauthorized access to the records of over 160 patients she was fired, and notice was sent to the affected patients. Heather and the other plaintiffs then sued Katrina and Community. Against Community there were claims of respondeat superior and negligent training, supervision, and retention. Katrina was sued for negligence (?) and invasion of privacy.
Community sought a jurisdictional dismissal on the theory that the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) applied. Community sought summary judgment asserting that Katrina acted “outside the scope of her employment,” plaintiffs lacked cognizable damages, and the claims against Katrina were “not actionable” under Indiana law.
Held:
1. MMA is not applicable here (on those facts) where “the conduct did not constitute malpractice.”
2. Indiana will recognize a cause of action (invasion of privacy) for the public disclosure of “private facts” (not limited to medical records).
3. Katrina’s actions were outside the scope of employment for purposes of respondeat superior.
4. Disputes of facts preclude summary judgment on the “scope of employment” issue.
5. The negligence claims against Community fail for a lack of compensable damages. Emotional distress damages are recoverable only under the “modified impact rule” or “bystander rule,” neither of which was satisfied here.
6. The claim of public disclosure of private facts falls to summary judgment where the designated evidence negates the publicity element.
All Associate Justices of the SCOTSI concurred in the C.J. Rush Opinion without writing separately. To the CLB the flaw in the SCOTSI decision is that we are (once again) left with a right (to privacy of medical records) without a remedy (like monetary damages). The CLB hates hypocrisy.
If there is a remedy to this flawed judicially created law, it most likely resides in the General Assembly. The Indiana General Assembly could, without opening the floodgates, create a statutory cause of action (perhaps with “liquidated” minimum damages) for breach of duty in maintaining the confidentiality of our medical records.
___________
¹ For prior COA cases similar to this, see Robbins v. Trustees of Indiana University, 45 N.E.3d 1(Ind. Ct. App.) and Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy 21 N.E.3d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) Reh. At 25 N.E.3d 748.
Leave a Reply