Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N.P

767 N.W.2d 34 (Minn.Ct.App. 2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Yath (P) wanted to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases because she had a new sex partner. Navy Tek, a medical assistant who is related to P's husband, saw P at the clinic and became curious. Tek decided to access P's medical file, knowing this would violate clinic policy. Tek sent an email message to Net Phat. Phat was related to both Tek and Yath by marriage, and she worked as a medical records coder at Fairview Ridges Hospital. Tek called and told Phat that she saw P's record and that P had another sex partner. Phat told her brother, and word eventually reached P that Tek had viewed her medical file and had shared the information with Phat. D was informed and investigated and learned that Tek had accessed P's medical file five times. Tek initially denied accessing P's records and later denied telling anyone. D decided to fire Tek on May 10, 2006, for violating D policy and HIPAA. The next day Tek or Phat of created a disparaging Internet webpage at MySpace.com using the name 'Rotten Candy' and posting information that Tek learned from P's medical file. The webpage included a photograph of P and stated that 'Rotten Candy' has a sexually transmitted disease, that she recently cheated on her husband, and that she is addicted to plastic surgery. The page listed six 'friends,' indicating that by then at least those six people had accessed the page. The webpage had been immediately 'removed.' P discovered that the MySpace account for the webpage originated on a computer having an Internet Protocol address assigned to a business in Eagan. Tek's sister, Molyka Mao, worked at that business. P sued Tek, Mao, Phat, and D on a variety of theories. She sued all the defendants directly for invasion of her privacy, and all except Mao for 'breach of a confidential relationship.' She sued Tek, Mao, and Phat for intentional infliction of emotional distress. She sued D for negligent infliction of emotional distress. She also sued all Ds directly for violating Minnesota Statutes section 144.335, subdivision 3a(e), by disclosing information in P's medical file. D and Phat each moved for summary judgment. The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of D. It granted Phat's motion for summary judgment on all claims except intentional infliction of emotional distress. This appeal resulted.