## Facts

- Sally McCormick and her husband were in divorce proceedings in which child custody was disputed.
- In support of his custody-related motion, the husband submitted two letters addressing McCormick’s emotional condition: one from a social worker and one from McCormick’s family physician, Dr. Kent England.
- Dr. England’s letter, addressed “To Whom It May Concern,” stated McCormick suffered from major depression and alcoholism, described effects on the children, and opined she was a danger to herself and her family and required hospitalization.
- There was no indication the physician’s letter was prepared pursuant to a court order.
- McCormick sued Dr. England and the social worker for multiple torts, including breach of confidence based on alleged disclosure and dissemination of confidential mental-health-related information in violation of a duty of nondisclosure and referenced South Carolina Code § 19-11-95.
- The circuit court granted a motion to strike the breach-of-confidence cause of action as legally insufficient.
- McCormick appealed the striking of that claim.

## Issues

1. Whether South Carolina recognizes a common-law tort claim for a physician’s breach of a duty to maintain patient confidences absent a compelling interest or other justification.
2. Whether the complaint’s allegations, assumed true, were sufficient to state such a claim so as to survive a pleading-stage challenge.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the order striking the breach-of-confidence cause of action and remanded.
- The court held South Carolina recognizes a common-law tort claim for a physician’s unauthorized disclosure of patient confidences absent a compelling interest or other justification.
- Applying the pleading standard, the court concluded McCormick’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim; any justification for disclosure could not be resolved on a motion to strike.

## Legal Principles

- A motion to strike that attacks a theory of recovery is treated like a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; dismissal is improper if the pleaded facts and reasonable inferences could entitle the plaintiff to relief on any legal theory.
- The absence of an evidentiary physician–patient privilege does not foreclose recognition of a substantive common-law duty of confidentiality enforceable in tort.
- A physician may be liable in tort for disclosing a patient’s confidential medical information unless the disclosure is supported by a compelling interest or other legally sufficient justification (e.g., lawful compulsion).
- Whether an exception or justification applies is generally a factual/legal question not suitable for resolution at the pleading stage when not apparent on the face of the complaint.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a common-law cause of action in South Carolina for a physician’s breach of patient confidentiality and held that McCormick’s allegations of unauthorized disclosure in a custody dispute were sufficient to proceed, making it error to strike the claim at the outset.


McCormick v. England, 494 S.E.2d 431 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997)