1 Sprint? 10:22 AM * 84% ? ? https://www.leagle.com OPINION BENCH, Presiding Jud
ID: 248443 • Letter: 1
Question
1 Sprint? 10:22 AM * 84% ? ? https://www.leagle.com OPINION BENCH, Presiding Judge 1 Nicholas Sorensen (Sorensen) and his limited guardians, Kevin and Pamela Sorensen appeal the trial court's order granting Dr. John P. Barbuto's (Barbuto) motion to dismiss. We affirm in part and reverse in part. BACKGROUND I 2 In 1999, Sorensen sustained serious back and head injuries as a passenger in 143 P.3d 298] a single-automobile accident. Over the next year and a half, Barbuto treated Sorensen for head injuries and seizures. The treatment included prescriptions for medicine, and cognitive therapy. When Sorensen's medical insurer removed Barbuto from its approved providers list, Sorensen terminated his physician- patient relationship with Barbuto and continued his treatment with another physician. diagnostic examinations, 3 Sorensen then filed a personal injury actionExplanation / Answer
The Sorensen v. Barbuto case went apparently unnoticed by the healthcare community in spite of the footnote of HIPAA reference and it may be due to the lack of further discussion.
Sorensen received personal injury treatment from Dr Barbuto after a single passenger motor vehicle accident. After few months of treatment, Sorensen was forced to move to treatment under another physician due to the removal of Dr Barbuto’s name from the provider's list by the insurer. Dr Barbuto subsequently produced Sorensen’s medical records and engaged in ex parte communications with defence counsel in the personal injury suit. After Sorensen came to know this disclosure, he objected and the trial court excluded Barbuto’s testimony. Sorensen prevailed in the personal injury action.
On a later event, Sorensen has filed an action against Dr Barbuto declaring many causes of action, but Sorensen’s suit was dismissed by the trial court and the above appeal followed.
The appeal court remarked that doctor/patient relationship contemplates a duty of confidentiality which expands beyond the termination of the patient/physician relationship. The court also agreed that the duty not to disclose confidential personal information rises out of trust and confidence in that relationship. The court made a conclusion that it is a tort, arose from the breach of confidentiality.
The appeal court observed that, in his brief, Sorensen emphasized the American Medical Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics, and the Hippocratic Oath citing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),. Dr Barbuto points out that HIPAA does not provide a private right of action, with which the court apparently agreed. But the court has not done a further discussion of the HIPAA basis. The court announced that ex parte communication between a physician and opposing counsel constitutes a breach of the physician’s fiduciary duty of confidentiality.
The appeal court also identified that the trial court’s dismissal of Sorensen’s claim was an error because Dr.Barbuto’s tort-based duty of confidentiality continued even after patient/physician relationship ended.
HIPPA policies on violation of confidentiality and ethical issue of tort had occurred in this case.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.