Thornton v. Statcare, PLLC
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00403-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-22-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligence - Physician-patient privilege - Section 13-1-21 - M.R.E. 503 - Breach of contract Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-07-2007 Appealed from: PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: David H. Strong Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT. Case Number: 05-374-PCS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ADRIENNE THORNTON |
DWAYNE G. DEER |
||
| Appellee: | STATCARE, PLLC | R. MARK HODGES, LOREN HENAGAN PRATT, KIMBERLY NELSON HOWLAND |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Negligence - Physician-patient privilege - Section 13-1-21 - M.R.E. 503 - Breach of contract |
| Summary of the Facts: | Adrienne Thornton filed a lawsuit alleging that her employment with Wal-Mart was terminated because Statcare, PLLC disclosed to Wal-Mart confidential medical information concerning Thornton without her authorization. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Statcare, and Thornton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Physician-patient privilege Thornton argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to her claim for violation of the physician-patient privilege, because the Wal-Mart form that Statcare faxed to Thornton’s supervisor contained medical information regarding her ability to return to work. The privilege found in section 13-1-21(1) is limited to communications made to a physician by a patient. Because the return to work date on the Wal-Mart form Statcare faxed to the supervisor is not information Thornton communicated to Statcare, this information is not privileged under section 13-1-21. The privilege under M.R.E. 503 is not limited to communications made to a physician by a patient. Under Rule 503, a communication is confidential if not intended to be disclosed to third persons. Here, the information contained in the Wal-Mart form was clearly intended to be disclosed to a third party. It is undisputed that Thornton sought Statcare’s services in order to obtain medical leave. Therefore, the information contained in the Wal-Mart form is not confidential within the meaning of Rule 503(b)(B), and it is not privileged under Rule 503(b)(B). While it is less clear if the information contained in the Wal-Mart form is privileged within the meaning of Rule 503(b)(A), a determination on this point is unnecessary because Thornton waived the privilege when she provided the Wal-Mart form to her supervisor. Issue 2: Negligence The duty upon which Thornton rests her negligence claim is the physician-patient privilege. Because Thornton waived the physician-patient privilege, her claim of negligence must fail since there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the elements of duty or breach of duty. In addition, the evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Statcare’s conduct proximately caused Thornton’s termination. Issue 3: Breach of contract Thornton argues that Statcare failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to her breach of contract claim. Thornton’s breach of contract claim is nothing more than a regurgitation of her claim for violation of the physician-patient privilege. This is evident from Thornton’s complaint and appellate brief. Therefore, there was no error in the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Statcare on this claim. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
