Caption Confidentiality PDF

Preview

Summary

CASE BRIEF

Caption: Doe v. Medlantic Health Care Group, Inc., 814 A.2d 939 (2003).

The Plaintiff, John Doe, had not informed his colleagues and employers that he was HIV positive. Doe was employed as a Janitor for the organization that offered various cleaning services to ...

Description

Caption: Doe v. Medlantic Health Care Group, Inc., 814 A.2d 939 (2003). Statements of Fact The Plaintiff, John Doe, had not informed his colleagues and employers that he was HIV positive. Doe was employed as a Janitor for the organization that offered various cleaning services to the United States Department of State. One core worker of the State Department, Goldring Tijuana, was a receptionist at the Washington Health Center (WHC), which belong to Medlantic Health Care Group (Defendant). Doe underwent some medical check-up and follow-ups there. Goldring told other colleagues that Doe had HIV, which made Doe upset when he came back to work. When he noticed that Goldring was the person responsible for disclosing the information, Doe filed a lawsuit against Medlantic and Goldring, where he argued that they breached confidential relationships on the ground of the WHC’s negligence in allowing Goldring access to the confidential information of the patient. After a trial, the Trial Court found the Medlantic liable for the breach of confidential relationship.1

Issue Whether the disclosure of patient’s information was a breach of confidentiality obligations that go with the patient-provider relationship, and carry the strict responsibility compared to the reasonable person to honor confidence and trust developed by that particular relationship?

Rule The breach of a confidential relationship is explained as having the unprivileged, unconsented disclosure to the “third party of nonpublic information that the defendant has learned within a confidential relationship.” 2 The tort of negligence to breach the confidential relationships occurs from the duty that “attaches to nonpersonal relationships [such as hospital-patient] customarily understood to carry an obligation of confidence.”3 This duty of care provides an obligation, which is considered to be more strict than the reasonable person test, to “scrupulously honor the trust and confidence reposed in them because of that special relationship. . . ."4 Therefore, the obligation of confidentiality that the patient-provider relationship is responsible for comes with a strict duty to honor the confidence and trust established by specialties.

Analysis According to Justice Ruiz, the duty of confidentiality that patient-provider relationship is accompanied with comes with a stricter commitment, mainly compared to that of a reasonable person to honor confidence and trust introduced by that special relationship. The negligence of breaching that confidential relationship contains the “unconsented, unprivileged disclosure to a third party of nonpublic information that the defendant has learned within a confidential relationship." 5 In this case, the plaintiff provided enough evidence at the trial court to permit the jury to find that the Health Provider (Defendant) failed to cater for the “utmost caution” in preserving the confidentiality of information and medical records belonging to the Plaintiff. Also, the court found that there was significant evidence that convinced them that routine failure of employers to follow hospital privacy protocol and of course, distribution of private information, without having the consent of the owner and verifying the identity of the individual requesting private information or the critical reason of request. The defendant’s duty of care is equivalent to that of a fiduciary relationship. It carries high standards compared to simple negligence or that of reasonable person standards. Fiduciary responsibility has to act in-line with the highest degree of loyalty, honesty, reliability, and forthrightness within various parameters of the introduced special relationship to the client. 1 Doe v. Medlantic Health Care Group, Inc., 814 A.2d 939 (2003). 2 Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros., 492 A.2d 580, 591 (D.C. 1985). 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Doe v. Medlantic Health Care Group, Inc., 814 A.2d 939 (2003).

Conclusion The court held that sufficient evidence in court supported Doe (Plaintiff) argument against the Medlantic Health Care Group, Inc., (Defendant) for tort in breach of confidentiality after disclosing his private medical information. The court ruled that the Confidentiality agreement for the patient-provider was a valid, and enforceable contract and that the plaintiff was entitled to presume that the Hospital would honor the confidential relationship....