# Moses v. McWilliams

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 28, 1988 · 379 Pa. Super. 150

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746759

## Case

- **Full name:** Pearlena MOSES, Appellant, v. Daniel T. McWILLIAMS, Esq., Marvin Krane, M.D., and Albert Einstein Medical Center; Pearlena MOSES, Appellant, v. UNDERWRITERS ADJUSTING COMPANY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 28, 1988
- **Citations:** 379 Pa. Super. 150; 549 A.2d 950; 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2892
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sole
- **Judges:** Cirillo, Brosky, Olszewski, Sole, Montemuro, Tamilia, Kelly, Popovich, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 94 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746759

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying the privilege to a claim of breach of confidentiality by a doctor’s testimony in patient’s malpractice case, and citing cases applying the privilege to claims of, inter alia, civil conspiracy, assault and battery, mutilation of a corpse, intentional infliction of emot…
- discussing cases from other jurisdictions that recognized a breach of confidentiality claim where there were extra- judicial disclosures of information
- noting that a majority of jurisdictions recognize a cause of action for breach of the physician-patient privilege where extra-judicial disclosures of confidential information have been made
- rejecting a cause of action for breach of confidentiality brought against a doctor who had ex parte pretrial discussions with medical malpractice defendant’s attorney and testified at trial as an expert witness

## Opinion text

DEL SOLE, Judge,
concurring:
I join the majority in all respects save one. I agree that when a patient files a lawsuit claiming personal injury, that patient has consented to the disclosure of relevant medical information by treating physicians. Therefore, there was no breach of the duty of confidentiality by Dr. Krane in this case. There being no breach of a duty, there can be no claim against the remaining defendants for inducing the disclosure. Also, I agree that judicial proceeding immunity would protect all of the defendants from claims for defamation.
I would not reach the issue of whether judicial proceeding immunity protects a person from liability for breaching a duty of confidentiality. It is not necessary to address that issue in this case. Also, since the claim in a breach of confidentiality case is based upon the fact something was disclosed, not what was disclosed, I seriously question whether immunity would be available in those situations.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746759. Public record. Not legal advice.