Hammonds v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
7 Ohio Misc. 25, 34 Ohio Op. 2d 138, 243 F. Supp. 793 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third party who induces a physician to breach their fiduciary duty of confidentiality to a patient is liable to the patient for damages. This liability arises because public policy recognizes the physician-patient relationship as a confidential one, and inducing the breach of such a fiduciary duty is a tortious act.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was being treated by Dr. Alexander Ling for an injury sustained at Euclid-Glenville Hospital.
- The plaintiff was engaged in litigation against Euclid-Glenville Hospital regarding this injury.
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (Aetna) was Dr. Ling's medical malpractice insurance carrier.
- The plaintiff alleged that Aetna, through an attorney, falsely told Dr. Ling that the plaintiff was contemplating a malpractice suit against him.
- Relying on this false pretext, Aetna allegedly induced Dr. Ling to divulge confidential medical information about the plaintiff.
- Aetna also allegedly persuaded Dr. Ling to terminate his physician-patient relationship with the plaintiff.
- The confidential information was intended for use in the plaintiff's pending litigation against the hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a complaint against Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- Aetna filed a Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.
- The district court previously issued an opinion and order that overruled Aetna's Motion to Dismiss.
- Aetna subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion for Reconsideration of the court's earlier opinion denying the Motion to Dismiss.
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 third party, such as an insurance company, become liable in damages to a patient for inducing the patient's physician to disclose confidential medical information obtained within the physician-patient relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Connell, Chief Judge.
Yes, a third party who induces a physician to breach the duty of confidentiality is liable for damages. The court held that the duty of medical secrecy is not merely an ethical obligation but a legal one grounded in public policy. This duty creates a fiduciary relationship between doctor and patient, which implies a warranty of silence. An unauthorized revelation of medical secrets is tortious conduct, and because the relationship is fiduciary, principles of trust law apply. Therefore, a third party who induces a breach of this fiduciary duty, akin to inducing a breach of trust, is directly liable to the aggrieved patient. The court rejected the argument that filing a personal injury lawsuit constitutes a complete waiver of confidentiality that would permit unsupervised, private conferences between the treating physician and the patient's legal adversary.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing a tort action against a third party for inducing a physician's breach of confidentiality, rooting the physician's duty in public policy rather than common law or statute alone. By classifying the doctor-patient relationship as fiduciary, the court extended principles of trust law, making third-party inducers liable for the breach. This decision strengthens patient privacy protections by creating a strong deterrent for insurance companies and defense attorneys who might otherwise seek to gain an unfair advantage through ex parte communications with a plaintiff's treating physician. It clarifies that a waiver of testimonial privilege for litigation does not grant a license for clandestine, informal discovery.
