## Facts

- John Doe was a student in a medical assistant training program operated by High-Tech Institute, Inc., doing business as Cambridge College.
- Doe told an instructor he had previously tested HIV-positive through an anonymous test and asked that the information be kept confidential.
- The instructor required students to submit blood samples for rubella testing and provided a consent form indicating the test to be performed was for rubella.
- Doe signed the consent form with the understanding his blood would be tested only for rubella.
- Without Doe’s knowledge or consent, the instructor directed the laboratory to test Doe’s blood sample for HIV; no other student’s sample was requested for HIV testing.
- The HIV test returned a positive result; the laboratory reported the result as required by statute, contributing to later dissemination of Doe’s HIV status.
- Doe sued on multiple theories, including (1) intrusion upon seclusion based on the unauthorized HIV test and (2) public disclosure of private facts based on later disclosures.
- The trial court dismissed the intrusion claim for failure to state a claim, while the public-disclosure claim proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict for Doe.
- Doe appealed only the dismissal of the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that an instructor ordered an HIV test on a student’s blood sample, obtained under consent for rubella testing only, state a claim for intrusion upon seclusion under Colorado law.
2. Whether the intentional acquisition of highly personal medical information through unauthorized testing can be an “intrusion” that a reasonable person would find highly offensive.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the Rule 12(b)(5) dismissal of the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim and remanded.
- The court held that the alleged unauthorized HIV testing plausibly constituted an intentional intrusion into private affairs that could be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- The court concluded that limited consent to rubella testing did not, on the pleadings, bar a claim based on the separate, unconsented HIV test.
- The existence of a separate, successful public-disclosure claim did not preclude an intrusion claim because the torts address different wrongs (improper acquisition versus improper dissemination).
- Statutory reporting obligations for positive HIV results did not negate the alleged intrusion arising from the initial decision to obtain HIV-status information without consent.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a person intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon another’s solitude or private affairs in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- The tort protects against the wrongful method of obtaining private information; publication is not required.
- Consent is a scope-limited defense; exceeding the scope of a plaintiff’s consent can support liability if other elements are plausibly alleged.
- Highly sensitive medical information, including HIV status, may support a finding that unauthorized acquisition is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts are distinct privacy torts and may both arise from the same episode.

## Conclusion

The court held that a student’s allegations that an instructor ordered HIV testing on a blood sample provided for rubella testing, without knowledge or consent, were sufficient to plead intrusion upon seclusion; it reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.


Doe v. High-Tech Inst., Inc., 972 P.2d 1060 (Colo. App. 1998)