Humphers v. First Interstate Bank
696 P.2d 527, 298 Or. 706 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A professional's unauthorized disclosure of confidential information can give rise to a tort action for breach of a professional duty of confidentiality, where that duty is established by a source external to the tort itself, such as a professional licensing statute.
Facts:
- In 1959, Ramona Humphers gave birth to a daughter while unmarried, under the care of her physician, Dr. Harry E. Mackey.
- To protect her identity, Dr. Mackey registered Humphers at the hospital under the false name "Mrs. Jean Smith."
- Humphers consented to her daughter's adoption, and the hospital records concerning the birth were sealed.
- Twenty-one years later, the daughter, Dawn Kastning, sought Dr. Mackey's help in identifying her biological mother.
- Dr. Mackey provided Kastning with a letter containing false medical information about Humphers, claiming it was medically important for Kastning to find her mother.
- Relying on Dr. Mackey's letter, hospital staff allowed Kastning to access the sealed medical records.
- Using the information from the records, Kastning located and contacted Humphers, which caused Humphers severe emotional distress.
Procedural Posture:
- Ramona Humphers filed a complaint against the estate of Dr. Mackey in an Oregon circuit court (trial court).
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The circuit court granted the defendant's motion and entered a judgment of dismissal.
- Humphers, as appellant, appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of three claims but reversed the trial court's dismissal of the claims for invasion of privacy and breach of a confidential relationship.
- The defendant, as petitioner, sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision by the Supreme Court of Oregon, which granted the petition.
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 physician commit an actionable tort by disclosing a former patient's identity to the biological child she had given up for adoption, either as an invasion of privacy or as a breach of a confidential relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Linde, J.
No as to invasion of privacy; Yes as to breach of a confidential relationship. The disclosure does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy, but it does support a claim for breach of a professional duty of confidentiality. A tort for invasion of privacy would theoretically apply to anyone making the disclosure, but the wrongfulness of Dr. Mackey's action stems specifically from his professional role and the duty it imposes. The court rejected the invasion of privacy claim because Dr. Mackey did not intrude to get information; he disclosed information he already possessed through a confidential relationship. The court found that a viable claim exists for breach of confidence because a physician's duty to protect patient secrets is not merely a matter of custom, but is a nonconsensual duty imposed by external legal sources, namely Oregon's medical licensing statute (ORS 677.190(5)), which defines divulging a professional secret as professional misconduct. A breach of this statutory duty can give rise to a civil action for damages.
Analysis:
This decision distinguishes the tort of breach of a confidential relationship from the tort of invasion of privacy, grounding the former in specific, externally defined legal duties. By finding that a professional licensing statute can create a standard of care that is actionable in a private tort suit, the court provides a concrete basis for liability against professionals who betray confidences. This precedent strengthens the legal protection of confidential information held by professionals and clarifies that the source of the duty, not just the privacy interest of the plaintiff, is the key element. It impacts future cases by directing plaintiffs to anchor their claims in specific statutory or regulatory duties rather than broad, common-law privacy principles.
Unlock the full brief for Humphers v. First Interstate Bank