## Facts

- Lloyd Hammonds was involved in pending personal-injury litigation in which Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. had an adverse interest through its insured.
- Hammonds alleged Aetna persuaded his treating physician, Dr. Alexander Ling, to discontinue the physician-patient relationship.
- Hammonds further alleged Aetna induced Dr. Ling to divulge confidential medical information obtained during treatment.
- Hammonds claimed Aetna sought the information for use in the pending litigation and induced disclosure by falsely suggesting Hammonds was contemplating a malpractice suit against Dr. Ling.
- Hammonds sued Aetna for damages based on interference with the physician-patient relationship and wrongful inducement of disclosure of confidential medical information.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio law recognizes a patient’s cause of action against a third party who knowingly induces the patient’s physician to breach the duty of confidentiality and disclose treatment-derived medical information.
2. Whether Aetna showed the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on Hammonds’s claims.

## Decision

- The court denied Aetna’s request to reconsider the earlier ruling that Ohio law recognizes liability for a third party’s knowing inducement of a physician’s wrongful disclosure of confidential patient information.
- The court denied Aetna’s motion for summary judgment because material factual disputes remained regarding whether Aetna induced termination of treatment and disclosure of confidential information, including whether it acted on a false pretext.

## Legal Principles

- A physician’s duty of confidentiality may arise from the fiduciary nature of the physician-patient relationship and accepted professional obligations, not solely from evidentiary privilege rules.
- A third party who knowingly induces or participates in a fiduciary’s breach of duty may be liable for resulting damages and is not placed in a better legal position than the breaching fiduciary.
- Summary judgment is improper where the alleged inducement, the existence and content of any disclosures, the presence or absence of justification, and related intent-based facts are genuinely disputed.

## Conclusion

The court reaffirmed that Ohio law can support tort liability against a third party that knowingly procures a physician’s unjustified disclosure of confidential medical information and held that disputed facts concerning the alleged inducement and disclosure required denial of summary judgment.


Hammonds v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 243 F. Supp. 793 (N.D. Ohio 1965)