Parker v. Carilion Clinic
819 S.E.2d 809 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An allegation of an employer-employee relationship creates a rebuttable presumption that an employee's tortious act was within the scope of employment, which is sufficient to survive a demurrer. However, a violation of a federal statute like HIPAA cannot support a state-law negligence per se claim without a pre-existing, underlying common-law duty.
Facts:
- Lindsey Parker was diagnosed with a medical condition at a healthcare facility owned and operated by Carilion Clinic.
- Several months later, Parker was at a different Carilion facility for an unrelated matter when a Carilion employee, Christy Davis, saw her speaking with a mutual acquaintance, Trevor Flora.
- Davis then accessed Parker's confidential medical records without authorization and discovered Parker's prior diagnosis.
- Davis contacted another Carilion employee, Lindsey Young, and disclosed Parker's diagnosis to her.
- Young then also accessed Parker's medical records without authorization to confirm the information.
- Young subsequently disclosed Parker's diagnosis to Flora.
- Flora then informed Parker that her confidential medical information had been disclosed to him.
Procedural Posture:
- Lindsey Parker sued Carilion Clinic and two of its employees in a Virginia circuit court (the trial court of first instance).
- Parker served process on Carilion but not on the individual employee defendants.
- Carilion filed demurrers, arguing that Parker's complaint failed to state a valid legal claim.
- The circuit court sustained Carilion's demurrers and dismissed all claims, granting Parker 21 days to file an amended complaint.
- Parker chose not to amend her complaint and instead filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
- On appeal, Parker is the appellant and Carilion is the appellee.
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 complaint alleging an employer-employee relationship create a rebuttable presumption that an employee's intentional tort occurred within the scope of employment, sufficient to survive a demurrer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice D. Arthur Kelsey
Yes. An allegation of an employment relationship creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee was acting within the scope of employment, and this presumption applies at the pleading stage, making dismissal on demurrer improper. The court reasoned that the prima facie elements of a claim remain the same from the complaint to the trial. Therefore, pleading an employer-employee relationship is sufficient to invoke the presumption that the employee's acts were within the scope of employment, shifting the burden to the employer to produce evidence to the contrary. Parker's complaint did not contain facts so clear and irrefutable as to rebut this presumption as a matter of law. While affirming the dismissal of the direct liability claims, the court held that Carilion could not be held directly liable for the tort of unauthorized disclosure because the employees were not authorized corporate agents acting on Carilion's behalf. Furthermore, the negligence per se claim based on HIPAA violations fails because Virginia law requires an underlying common-law duty for such a claim, and no common-law duty exists for a healthcare provider to secure information systems against rogue employees, only a duty not to disclose information.
Concurring - Unnamed Justice
Yes. The justice concurs in the judgment that the respondeat superior claim should survive the demurrer but writes separately to disagree with the majority's analysis of an employee's motive. The concurrence argues that the majority places undue emphasis on whether the employee's act arose from a personal motive. Citing precedent, the justice contends that the primary test is not the employee's motive but whether the tortious act was part of the 'class of acts' the employee was hired to perform and occurred during the execution of that service. Even an act done for purely personal reasons, like the fraud in Gina Chin, can fall within the scope of employment if the act itself (e.g., accepting a deposit) is a normal function of the employee's job.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the procedural strength of the respondeat superior presumption in Virginia, making it more difficult for employers to dismiss vicarious liability claims at the pleading stage. By holding that the presumption applies on demurrer, the court ensures that the fact-intensive 'scope of employment' inquiry is typically reserved for summary judgment or trial. The decision also significantly limits the utility of federal statutes like HIPAA for plaintiffs in state tort actions by reinforcing the strict requirement of a pre-existing common-law duty for a negligence per se claim. This solidifies the distinction between a healthcare provider's duty not to disclose information and a broader, unrecognized duty to actively secure that information from employee misconduct.
