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
MERRILL, Justice
(concurring specially) :
I would treat any reference in the pleadings to the Hippocratic Oath as surplusage because I do not think that it has any bearing on the cause of action. I think a cause of action is averred regardless of whether the patient had ever known that there was such an oath, or whether he was able to state a single provision of the oath.