## Facts

- In 1959, Ramona Humphers (then Ramona Jean Peek) gave birth at a hospital in Bend, Oregon, while unmarried.
- Her physician, Dr. Harry E. Mackey, registered her under an assumed name, and the hospital records concerning the birth were sealed and treated as nonpublic.
- Humphers consented to the child’s adoption the next day; the child was adopted by a local couple and later, as an adult, sought to identify and contact her biological mother.
- About 21 years later, the adopted daughter located Dr. Mackey and asked for help finding Humphers.
- Dr. Mackey provided the daughter a letter stating he had registered Humphers and recalled administering diethylstilbestrol (DES), asserting that potential medical consequences made it important to locate Humphers.
- The DES statements were false and were made to help the daughter obtain access to confidential records.
- Hospital personnel relied on the letter and allowed the daughter to copy Humphers’s medical records, enabling the daughter to locate and contact Humphers.
- Humphers alleged the contact caused emotional distress and related harms.
- After Dr. Mackey’s death, Humphers sued his estate (through its personal representative) alleging, among other theories, invasion of privacy and breach of a confidential or contractual obligation of secrecy.

## Issues

1. Whether disclosure enabling an adopted-out child to locate the birth mother states a claim for invasion of privacy based on public disclosure of private facts.
2. Whether a physician’s disclosure of confidential patient information, contrary to professional and statutory obligations, can support a civil damages action for breach of confidentiality.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court held that the pleaded facts did not establish the type of “publicity” required for the recognized public-disclosure privacy tort and rejected the invasion-of-privacy theory.
- The court held that a physician may be liable in tort for breaching a duty of confidentiality owed to a patient when the duty arises from the physician–patient relationship and is supported by statute and public policy.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, allowing the confidentiality-based claim to proceed while eliminating the privacy claim.

## Legal Principles

- Public-disclosure invasion of privacy generally requires “publicity” beyond disclosure to a single person or a narrow audience; a disclosure to one highly interested individual may be insufficient.
- A breach-of-confidentiality claim is distinct from a general privacy tort and depends on a special relationship imposing a duty to keep information secret, including the physician–patient relationship.
- Statutes and professional regulation imposing confidentiality obligations on physicians may supply a standard of conduct and support recognizing civil liability for wrongful disclosure.
- Improper use of medical authority to circumvent legally protected confidentiality (including sealed adoption and hospital records) can constitute a tortious breach of confidence when it foreseeably causes harm to the patient.

## Conclusion

The court refused to expand Oregon’s invasion-of-privacy doctrine to cover a nonpublic disclosure to the adopted daughter, but it recognized that a physician’s wrongful revelation of confidential patient information can give rise to tort liability for breach of confidentiality and remanded for further proceedings on that theory.


Humphers v. First Interstate Bank of Or., 298 Or. 706, 696 P.2d 527 (Or. 1985)