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
- 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.
- 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.