You are here: / / Medical Corporation Not Responsible for Unauthorized Disclosure of Medical...
, ,

Medical Corporation Not Responsible for Unauthorized Disclosure of Medical Information by Employee Acting Outside the Scope of Employment

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals answered a certified question from the Second Circuit in the negative.  The question was: “Whether, under New York law, the common law right of action for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality for the unauthorized disclosure of medical information may run directly against medical corporations, even when the employee responsible for the breach is not a physician and acts outside the scope of her employment?”:

… [A] medical corporation's duty of safekeeping a patient's confidential medical information is limited to those risks that are reasonably foreseeable and to actions within the scope of employment.  Doe v Guthrie Clinic Ltd, 224, CtApp 1-9-14

 

You might also like
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW.
A “Statutory Resident” of New York for Income Tax Purposes Must Actually Reside In New York, Not Merely Maintain Property in New York
EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND.
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON A CRIMINAL CONVICTION EXTENDS TO AIDING AND ABETTING DISCRIMINATION BY AN OUT-OF-STATE NON-EMPLOYER.
COURT PROPERLY EXCLUDED SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY; THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED STANDARD FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE; RATHER THE USUAL PROBATIVE VS PREJUDICIAL BALANCING TEST APPLIES.
Question of Fact Whether City Had a Special Relationship with Plaintiff Such that the City Owed a Duty to the Plaintiff Over and Above the Duty Owed to the Public at Large
Experts’ Failure to Address Proximate Cause Precluded Summary Judgment
THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH “FAILURE TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUSTENANCE” FOR A DOG, AN A MISDEMEANOR, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY NONHEARSAY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS; INSTRUMENT DISMISSED (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defense Counsel Should Have Been Present During Exchange Between Judge and Juror... Disclosure of Appraisal Documents Not Entitled to Conditional Immunity Even...