Walgreen Co. v. Abigail E. Hinchy
2014 WL 6130795, 21 N.E.3d 99, 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 560 (2014)
Rule of Law:
An employer can be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's tortious actions, even if unauthorized, if those actions are of the same general nature as or incidental to the employee's authorized job duties, and the employment provided the opportunity or means to commit the act.
Facts:
- Between late 2006 and early 2010, Abigail Hinchy was in an on-and-off sexual relationship with Davion Peterson, during which she filled all her prescriptions, including birth control, at a Walgreen pharmacy.
- In 2009, Peterson began dating Audra Withers, a pharmacist at the same Walgreen location where Hinchy filled her prescriptions.
- In August 2009, Hinchy became pregnant with Peterson's child, and at some point, Peterson learned he had contracted genital herpes.
- In late May 2010, after Peterson informed Withers about the baby and potential herpes exposure, Withers, during her shift at Walgreen, accessed Hinchy’s prescription profile twice in the Walgreen computer system for personal reasons.
- On May 29, 2010, Peterson sent Hinchy text messages detailing her birth control prescription history, specifically that she had not refilled them in July or August 2009, and mentioning he had a “print out.”
- In March 2011, Hinchy discovered Peterson and Withers were married and Withers was a pharmacist at her local Walgreen, leading her to suspect Withers accessed her records.
- When confronted by Walgreen, Withers admitted she had accessed Hinchy’s prescription profile for personal reasons.
- Walgreen's investigation confirmed a HIPAA/privacy violation by Withers viewing Hinchy’s prescription information without consent for personal purposes.
Procedural Posture:
- Abigail Hinchy filed a complaint in Marion Superior Court against Walgreen Co. and Audra Withers, alleging negligence/professional malpractice and invasion of privacy against Withers, and vicarious liability (respondeat superior) and direct claims (negligent training, supervision, retention) against Walgreen.
- Walgreen moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Walgreen's motion in part, dismissing Hinchy's claims for negligent training against Walgreen and invasion of privacy by intrusion against Withers, but denied summary judgment on the respondeat superior and public disclosure of private facts claims.
- Hinchy's attorney filed a trial brief 'under seal' with the trial court without serving a copy to Walgreen, which Walgreen objected to as improper ex parte communication.
- The trial court allowed Hinchy's attorney to withdraw the brief over Walgreen's objection.
- A four-day jury trial was held.
- The jury found in Hinchy's favor, determining total damages of $1.8 million, assigning 20% responsibility to non-party Peterson, and jointly holding Walgreen and Withers responsible for the remaining 80%.
- Walgreen Co. appealed the verdict to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by denying Walgreen Co.'s motions for summary judgment and directed verdict on the claim of respondeat superior liability, where an employee pharmacist accessed a customer's private prescription information for personal reasons while on duty and using company equipment?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, J.
No, the trial court did not err in denying Walgreen's motions for summary judgment and directed verdict on respondeat superior liability because the employee's actions were sufficiently related to her authorized duties to permit a jury to find Walgreen vicariously liable. The court reasoned that under Indiana law, an employer is vicariously liable if an employee inflicts harm while acting 'within the scope of employment,' which includes acts incidental to authorized conduct, or acts that are of the same general nature as authorized duties. While Withers accessed Hinchy's records for personal reasons, her actions—using the Walgreen computer system, handling customer prescriptions, and reviewing patient histories—were of the same general nature as her authorized job duties. The fact that her employment empowered her to commit the tort weighed in favor of respondeat superior. Distinguishing cases where none of the employee's actions were authorized, the court found that because some of Withers’s actions (using the company system to view patient profiles) were authorized, whether the unauthorized acts were within the scope of employment was a question of fact properly left to the jury. The court also affirmed that the underlying liability could be based on Withers's professional malpractice for breaching her duty of confidentiality as a pharmacist under Indiana Code § 25-26-13-15(a).
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of respondeat superior liability in Indiana, particularly for professional employees entrusted with sensitive information. It reinforces that an employer can be held liable even when an employee acts with a personal motive, provided the tortious conduct is intricately linked to the employee’s authorized duties and facilitated by the resources or authority granted by employment. The decision underscores the critical importance of a pharmacist's duty of confidentiality, emphasizing that breaches of this duty, even for personal reasons, can lead to employer liability if the breach occurs 'within the scope of employment' as broadly defined by the court.
