Hospital Not Liable Chat Revealing Test Results

A hospital is not liable for a phlebotomist’s casual comment, revealing the results of plaintiff’s pregnancy test, when the comment was made to plaintiff’s twin sister in a bar because the comment was not made in the course of employment, the Illinois Supreme Court found.

“The only reasonable inference from the undisputed facts was that Young was in the tavern for purely personal reasons, unexpectedly met her friend Sarah, began speaking with Sarah and, in violation of the hospital’s prohibition, revealed plaintiff’s medical condition,” the court wrote. The plaintiff had sued both the phlebotomist and the hospital for breach of health-care practitioner/patient confidentiality, invasion of privacy, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The action against the hospital was based on the theory that the hospital was liable for the action of its employee. The undisputed facts show that the hospital conducted training sessions with employees to emphasize the confidentiality of patient records. The phlebotomist saw the results of the pregnancy tests when she was filing the results at the hospital. Later she met the plaintiff’s twin sister at a bar. During what defendant described as “little chitchat,” she inquired as to how the plaintiff was feeling “since she was pregnant, you know. And she’s like no. And from there on out, I told her, I said I’m really sorry.”The trial court had dismissed the action against the hospital but allowed plaintiff to proceed individually against the phlebotomist for invasion of privacy.

However, the appellate court reinstated the action finding that there was a factual question as to whether the disclosure was motivated in part by a purpose to serve the hospital. (See this website’s What’s New Archives, March 17, 2006, for the earlier decision.)

The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court dissent. “Young was in no way motivated to serve the hospital. As the dissent correctly reasoned, ‘nothing in the record supports an inference that Young was attempting to benefit or serve her employer when she divulged plaintiff’s medical records. In fact, such disclosure was in direct contravention to the confidentiality agreements and did nothing to further the business of Illini Hospital. We agree and so hold,” the Illinois Supreme Court wrote.

Suzanne Bagent v. Blessing Care Corporation, Illinois Supreme Court No. 102430, dated January 19, 2007.