## Facts

- Plaintiffs were treated in the emergency room of Jersey Shore Medical Center in summer 2001 for severe trauma or serious illness.
- A television crew filmed plaintiffs during emergency treatment for a program titled “Trauma: Life in the ER,” with the hospital’s permission.
- Plaintiffs alleged consent forms were presented and signed during hospitalization, but they were incompetent to consent due to illness/injury and medication, and were induced by deceptive statements.
- Plaintiffs’ claims targeted the act of recording and the consent process, rather than any specific broadcast.
- One complaint sought class treatment for persons filmed as hospital patients in connection with the program over a multi-year period.

## Issues

1. Whether videotaping patients in an emergency room stated a claim under the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.
2. Whether the Hospital Patients’ Bill of Rights stated a claim against the hospital and related health-system defendants, and also against non-provider media defendants.
3. Whether alleged deception in obtaining filming consents stated a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
4. Whether plaintiffs sufficiently pled unjust enrichment against the media and medical defendants based on benefits derived from filming patients.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the denial of dismissal of the Wiretap Act claim and ordered that claim dismissed.
- The court held the Patients’ Bill of Rights claim was adequately pled against the medical defendants, but did not apply to the media defendants.
- The appellate court reversed the denial of dismissal of the Consumer Fraud Act claim and ordered that claim dismissed.
- The court affirmed denial of dismissal of unjust enrichment and allowed that claim to proceed against both medical and media defendants.

## Legal Principles

- The Wiretap Act’s definition of “intercept” (aural acquisition of the contents of communications) does not reach visible video filming of medical treatment and interactions as pled; privacy concerns must be addressed through other causes of action.
- The Hospital Patients’ Bill of Rights imposes enforceable duties on licensed health-care facilities regarding patient privacy and respectful treatment; alleged authorization of filming in an emergency room without valid consent can state a claim against the hospital entities.
- The Patients’ Bill of Rights does not create direct statutory liability for non-licensed third parties such as television producers and broadcasters.
- The Consumer Fraud Act requires a covered consumer transaction and an unlawful practice in that context; alleged misrepresentations tied to emergency medical care and filming consents were not within the statute’s targeted consumer marketplace conduct.
- Unjust enrichment may be pled without privity where defendants allegedly received benefits from use of plaintiffs’ images and circumstances and retention of those benefits without compensation would be unjust.

## Conclusion

On interlocutory review of a pleading-stage dismissal ruling, the court narrowed the statutory theories by dismissing the Wiretap Act and Consumer Fraud Act counts, limited Patients’ Bill of Rights liability to the hospital defendants, and permitted unjust enrichment to proceed against both the hospital and media defendants.


Castro v. NYT Television, 370 N.J. Super. 282 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)