## Facts

- Mary Vassiliades, age 54, underwent a facelift and related cosmetic procedures performed by Dr. Csaba Magassy.
- Dr. Magassy took “before” and “after” photographs in connection with treatment.
- Vassiliades discussed possible use of the photos but understood any use would be limited, professional, and non-identifying; she wanted the facelift to remain private outside close family and friends.
- Garfinckel’s sponsored an in-store cosmetic program on “new faces” and invited Dr. Magassy to speak; it asked about consent and was assured by Dr. Magassy that consent had been obtained.
- At the in-store event, Dr. Magassy displayed Vassiliades’s before-and-after slides to an audience of about 79 people; she was not named but was identifiable from her facial features.
- A television program promoting the event briefly displayed the photos (under 40 seconds), again without naming her; a former coworker recognized her, and the information spread.
- Vassiliades testified she suffered severe embarrassment, distress, and depression upon learning her surgery had been publicized.
- Dr. Magassy asserted consent and a privilege based on public interest in cosmetic surgery; Garfinckel’s asserted good-faith reliance on the doctor’s consent assurance and a public-interest/First Amendment privilege.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a jury to find Dr. Magassy liable for invasion of privacy by publicity of private facts based on the unauthorized display and broadcast of identifiable pre- and post-operative photographs.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a jury to find Dr. Magassy liable for breach of fiduciary duty arising from violation of physician–patient confidentiality in using treatment photographs.
3. Whether the trial court correctly directed verdicts against Vassiliades on false light and appropriation of likeness for commercial gain.
4. Whether Garfinckel’s could be held liable for invasion of privacy despite its reliance on Dr. Magassy’s assurance that patient consent existed.
5. Whether the trial court properly granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (and, alternatively, a new trial) after the jury awarded damages to Vassiliades.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the JNOV as to Dr. Magassy on publicity of private facts and held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to decide that claim.
- The appellate court reversed the directed verdict for Dr. Magassy on breach of fiduciary duty and held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to decide that claim.
- The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict for Dr. Magassy on false light.
- The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict for Dr. Magassy on appropriation of likeness for commercial gain.
- The appellate court affirmed judgment for Garfinckel’s, holding it was not liable on these facts due to good-faith reliance on the physician’s assurance of consent.

## Legal Principles

- Publicity of private facts requires (1) publicity of a matter concerning the plaintiff’s private life, (2) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (3) is not of legitimate public concern.
- “Publicity” does not require widespread mass-media dissemination; communication to a group in a manner likely to become public knowledge may suffice.
- A person’s decision to undergo cosmetic surgery may constitute a private fact; identifiable before-and-after photographs can support liability if disclosed beyond authorized limits.
- Public interest in a medical topic does not automatically justify revealing an identifiable patient’s likeness without consent; First Amendment protections for discussing the topic do not necessarily extend to identifying a private patient.
- Physicians owe a fiduciary duty of confidentiality regarding patient information and images obtained during treatment; exceeding the scope of any consent can constitute a breach.
- False light requires a materially false implication; truthful before-and-after photos of the plaintiff’s actual condition do not satisfy falsity.
- Appropriation of likeness generally requires use of identity for the defendant’s commercial advantage in an endorsement/advertising sense; incidental benefit from an informational/educational presentation is insufficient on this record.
- A third party that acts in good faith and without notice of lack of consent may avoid privacy liability when it reasonably relies on a physician’s assurance that consent was obtained.
- JNOV is improper where, viewing evidence favorably to the verdict winner, reasonable jurors could reach more than one conclusion.

## Conclusion

The court held that a jury could find a physician liable for publicizing private facts and breaching medical confidentiality by using identifiable facelift photographs beyond any limited consent, while rejecting false light and commercial appropriation theories and shielding a non-medical sponsor that relied in good faith on the physician’s consent assurance.


Vassiliades v. Garfinckel’s, Brooks Bros., 492 A.2d 580 (D.C. 1985)