Reputational Harm Enough to Support Wrongful Disclosure Claim
The Missouri Court of Appeals determined that a hospital employee whose coworkers accessed her patient records without her consent, discovered she had refused to be vaccinated for COVID‑19, and shared that information resulting in the employee being ostracized, ridiculed, and harassed by her coworkers, had alleged actual, particularized injuries such as emotional distress, harassment, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of privacy that were sufficient to support her claim of wrongful disclosure of her records as a result of the hospital’s failure to protect her confidential medical records. The Court of Appeals emphasized that economic harm wasn’t required to support a claim, reputational and emotional injuries may be sufficient. Howland v. Truman Med. Ctr., Inc.
First Amendment Retaliation Claim Can Proceed
The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma refused to dismiss a First Amendment retaliation claim made by a certified nursing assistant (CNA) who worked at a state‑operated veterans facility in the process of closing who alleged that her employment had been wrongfully terminated after she made a Facebook post criticizing the forced relocation of the residents, describing the veterans as scared and confused due to a lack of transparency and claiming that they deserved better. The court applied a five-part test and determined that the First Amendment retaliation claim had been sufficiently pled and that qualified immunity did not apply with the key element being whether or not the CNA’s speech addressed a matter of public concern, which it found to be the case. Croston v. Breshears
Disclosure Pursuant to Court Order Not Improper
The Superior Court of Connecticut granted a hospital’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a patient alleging improper disclosure of medical health records, finding that litigation privilege applied. The patient had received medical care and a psychiatric evaluation at the hospital after causing an accident while driving under the influence. Following his arrest and criminal prosecution, the hospital provided his records to the prosecutor in response to a court order, including mental health records, which the patient claimed violated confidentiality protections under state law. Ultimately, the Superior Court concluded that the hospital had litigation privilege, which immunizes parties for disclosures made during judicial proceedings because (1) the hospital provided the records in response to a valid court order; (2) the hospital did not exceed the scope of the order, as it produced only the records requested and submitted them under seal; and (3) the records had factual relevance to the criminal prosecution, as they related to the patient’s condition following the incident. Harvin v. Yale New Haven Health Servs. Corp.