holding that a medical doctor is under a general duty not to make extra-judicial disclosures of information acquired in the course of the doctor-patient relationship and that a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action
How later courts described this case
- holding that a medical doctor is under a general duty not to make extra-judicial disclosures of information acquired in the course of the doctor-patient relationship and that a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action
- finding that breach of duty not to make extra-judicial disclosures of information acquired in the course of the doctor-patient relationship will give rise to a cause of action
- those states which had enacted a physician/patient testimonial privilege statute were almost uniform in allowing the cause of action for breach of confidentiality, those which had not enacted such a statute were split on that issue
- allowing privacy, fiduciary, and contract causes of action to proceed against physician for disclosure of confidential information
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HEFLIN, Chief Justice
(concurring):
I concur in the opinion of Justice Blood-worth but I would add to it.
While the language which mentions a defense to these causes of action — “supervening interests of society” and the words from Hague v. Williams, 37 N.J. 328 , 181 A.2d 345 , which carves out an exception when the public interest so demands, probably include within their scope a disclosure made to a legitimate research group, I would, nevertheless, specify that such a disclosure is a defense.