## Facts

- A married couple participated in a hospital’s in vitro fertilization (IVF) program, resulting in a pregnancy with triplets.
- The couple alleged they closely guarded this information and disclosed it to virtually no one outside immediate family.
- The hospital hosted an anniversary social function for IVF participants and allegedly assured attendees there would be no publicity and no media presence.
- A television station’s news crew attended; the couple alleged they refused interview requests and attempted to avoid being filmed.
- The station broadcast a segment on IVF that included footage of the couple and disclosed they were expecting triplets through the hospital’s IVF program; names were not used, but the couple alleged they were identifiable to acquaintances and co-workers.
- The couple alleged embarrassment and social consequences, including church chastisement and workplace ridicule.
- They sued the hospital and the station for common-law invasion of privacy based on public disclosure of private facts; the trial court entered summary judgment/dismissal for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the couple pleaded and supported a submissible claim for public disclosure of private facts based on televised disclosure of IVF-related pregnancy information.
2. Whether the couple waived any privacy rights as a matter of law by attending the hospital event where media were present.
3. Whether newsworthiness/legitimate public concern or lack of offensiveness could be decided as a matter of law on dismissal/summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded.
- The court held the couple’s pleadings and supporting materials stated a claim for public disclosure of private facts.
- The court held genuine disputes of material fact existed on waiver/consent, identifiability, offensiveness, and whether the specific disclosure was of legitimate public concern.
- The court declined to decide at this stage whether defendants’ conduct was privileged as news reporting or whether a reasonable jury would find the disclosure highly offensive.

## Legal Principles

- Public disclosure of private facts requires: (1) publicity, (2) absent waiver or privilege, (3) of private matters not of legitimate public concern, (4) causing shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
- A plaintiff may be “publicized” and effectively identified even if not named, where dissemination reaches persons who recognize the plaintiff.
- Waiver/consent to publicity is generally fact-dependent, especially where plaintiffs allege assurances of no publicity and affirmative steps to avoid filming.
- Reporting on a newsworthy topic does not necessarily justify disclosing identifiable, intimate medical and reproductive facts about private individuals; whether the specific disclosure is of legitimate public concern may present mixed questions unsuitable for summary judgment on a disputed record.
- On summary judgment/dismissal, courts must view the record in the nonmovant’s favor and avoid resolving credibility and factual disputes.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the couple’s privacy claim to proceed because the record raised triable questions about whether the broadcast publicized identifiable, highly private reproductive information without waiver and beyond any newsworthiness privilege, making dismissal or summary judgment premature.


Y.G. v. Jewish Hosp. of St. Louis, 795 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)