Chanko v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
49 N.E.3d 1171, 27 N.Y.3d 46 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A healthcare provider breaches the duty of physician-patient confidentiality by allowing an unauthorized third party to observe and record a patient's medical treatment without consent, regardless of whether the patient is identifiable in a subsequent broadcast. However, broadcasting such footage, while offensive, does not meet the high threshold of 'extreme and outrageous' conduct required for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Facts:
- Mark Chanko was brought to The New York and Presbyterian Hospital's emergency room after being struck by a vehicle.
- Dr. Sebastian Schubl was the chief surgical resident responsible for Mr. Chanko's treatment.
- With the Hospital's permission, an ABC News film crew was present in the emergency room, filming for a documentary series called 'NY Med.'
- Neither Mark Chanko nor his family, who were present at the hospital, were informed of the filming or provided their consent.
- The ABC crew filmed Mr. Chanko's medical treatment, the moment Dr. Schubl declared him deceased, and Dr. Schubl informing the family of his death.
- Sixteen months later, Mr. Chanko's widow, Anita Chanko, watched an episode of the show and recognized her husband's voice and saw his final moments depicted.
- The televised episode blurred Mr. Chanko's image and did not use his name.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, the family of Mark Chanko, sued The New York and Presbyterian Hospital, Dr. Sebastian Schubl, and American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC) in the New York Supreme Court (the trial court).
- Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court partially granted the motions, but allowed the claims for breach of physician-patient confidentiality (against the Hospital and Dr. Schubl) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (against all three defendants) to proceed.
- Defendants-appellants (Hospital, Schubl, and ABC) appealed the trial court's partial denial of their motions to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court). Plaintiffs-respondents did not cross-appeal.
- The Appellate Division modified the trial court's order, granted the defendants' motions in their entirety, and dismissed the entire complaint.
- The Appellate Division then granted plaintiffs-appellants leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a hospital's unauthorized filming of a patient's medical treatment for a television show (1) constitute a breach of physician-patient confidentiality, and (2) give rise to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress by the patient's family?
Opinions:
Majority - Stein, J.
Yes as to the breach of confidentiality; No as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress. A cause of action for breach of physician-patient confidentiality is sufficiently stated against the hospital and treating physician, but the conduct alleged does not rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' required for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The court reasoned that the duty of confidentiality was breached at the moment the hospital and physician allowed the unauthorized ABC film crew to be present during Mr. Chanko's treatment, irrespective of the later broadcast. This initial disclosure to a third party violated the broad, protective policy of the physician-patient privilege. Conversely, the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress fails because the conduct—broadcasting brief, edited footage with the patient's image blurred—does not meet New York's 'rigorous, and difficult to satisfy' standard for outrageousness. Citing its own precedent, the court noted that even reprehensible conduct often falls short of being 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community,' which is the legal threshold for this tort.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the tort of breach of physician-patient confidentiality occurs at the moment of unauthorized disclosure to any third party, not merely upon public dissemination. It reinforces that the protection extends to the simple presence of unauthorized individuals in a treatment setting, holding providers strictly liable for safeguarding the clinical environment. The ruling also solidifies New York's exceptionally high bar for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, illustrating that conduct deemed offensive by society may not be legally actionable as 'extreme and outrageous.' This precedent serves as a stark warning to healthcare institutions regarding media partnerships and underscores the difficulty of succeeding on an IIED claim in this jurisdiction.
