## Facts

- Mark Chanko was struck by a vehicle and taken to The New York and Presbyterian Hospital emergency room, where he arrived alert and responsive.
- ABC News employees were present in the hospital, with the hospital’s knowledge and permission, filming a documentary series about medical trauma.
- Neither Chanko nor his family was told that filming was occurring, and no consent was obtained for the crew’s presence or recording.
- Chanko’s treatment, death declaration, and the conversation informing his family of his death were recorded.
- About sixteen months later, Anita Chanko saw an episode that included footage and audio from the event; although the broadcast blurred the patient’s image and did not name him, she recognized his voice and the circumstances.
- The family alleged severe emotional distress and sued ABC, the hospital, and physicians for, among other claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and breach of physician–patient confidentiality under CPLR 4504(a).
- The trial court dismissed the claims against ABC (and substantially narrowed the case); the Appellate Division dismissed the entire complaint; the Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the IIED and confidentiality claims.

## Issues

1. Whether filming and broadcasting a patient’s emergency treatment and death without consent states a claim for IIED by the patient’s family under New York’s “extreme and outrageous” standard.
2. Whether permitting a television crew to observe and record emergency treatment without consent states a claim against a hospital and treating physician for breach of physician–patient confidentiality under CPLR 4504(a).

## Decision

- The court held the alleged conduct, though disturbing, was not “extreme and outrageous” enough to support IIED under New York law; the IIED claim was dismissed as to all defendants.
- The court held the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of physician–patient confidentiality against the hospital and the treating physician who allegedly allowed the filming.
- The confidentiality claim was not reinstated against ABC because the asserted duty arose from the physician–patient confidentiality obligation, not from ABC’s status as a media entity.
- The Appellate Division order was modified to reinstate the confidentiality cause of action only against The New York and Presbyterian Hospital and Dr. Sebastian Schubl; otherwise affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- IIED in New York is a narrowly available tort requiring conduct “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree” as to be “atrocious” and “utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”
- Efforts to anonymize a broadcast (e.g., blurring an image and omitting a name) may be relevant to whether conduct meets the IIED threshold, but do not control other duties.
- CPLR 4504(a) bars a physician from disclosing information acquired while attending a patient in a professional capacity that was necessary to enable professional treatment, absent a recognized exception.
- For pleading purposes, permitting non-medical third parties to be present during treatment and to see, hear, and record patient care can constitute a “disclosure” of confidential medical information under CPLR 4504(a), even if the eventual broadcast attempts anonymity.
- The confidentiality obligation is not limited to formal medical records or verbal statements; it can include visual and auditory information obtained from the treatment setting.

## Conclusion

The court refused to extend New York’s exceptionally demanding IIED doctrine to nonconsensual filming and broadcast of a patient’s death, but allowed the case to proceed against the hospital and a treating physician on the theory that granting media access to emergency treatment may unlawfully disclose confidential medical information under CPLR 4504(a).


Chanko v. Am. Broad. Cos., 27 N.Y.3d 46 (N.Y. 2016)