Reference no: EM131455404

Question: Yoder v. Ingersoll-Rand Company a.k.a. ARO 31 F. Supp. 2d 565 (W.D. Ohio 1997)

Lavern Yoder sued his employer, Ingersoll-Rand Company, to recover for damages he alleged were caused as a result of the employer's failure to keep his medical records confidential. Yoder was employed as a tow motor driver. After he learned that he was HIV-positive, Yoder made every effort to keep his HIVpositive status confidential from his employer because he was concerned that he might suffer adverse employment consequences if his employer or co-workers learned of his condition. A year and a half later, his doctor recommended that he take a medical leave of absence because of stress-induced asthma. An employment disability form was sent by mistake through the employer's mail system, through inner office mail, and then finally to Yoder's home, where it was read by his mother. She learned from the Physician's Statement that he had AIDS. She had known her son was HIV-positive but did not know he had AIDS. Yoder brought a complaint against the firm for permitting the unauthorized disclosure of his medical condition. Count four alleged state common-law claim for invasion of privacy. Both sides moved for summary judgment.

E. Invasion of Privacy

Yoder alleges an invasion of privacy under the theory, public disclosure of private facts about the plaintiff with which the public has no legitimate concern, which is also known as the "publicity" tort. In order successfully to make out a claim under the "publicity" prong, Plaintiff must show five elements:

(1) there must be publicity, i.e., the disclosure must be of a public nature, not private;

(2) the facts disclosed must be those concerning the private life of an individual, not his public life;

(3) the matter publicized must be one which would be highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities;

(4) the publication must have been made intentionally, not negligently; and

(5) the matter publicized must not be a legitimate concern to the public.

Plaintiff can show neither the first nor the fourth element of this test. As to the first element, Plaintiff can prevail only if he shows that the matter has been communicated to "the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge." It is not enough to show merely that the matter was communicated by the defendant to a third person. The record evidence indicates that Plaintiff's HIV/AIDS status was actually communicated to only one unauthorized person. Even if the Court accepts Plaintiff's argument that mail clerk Kornrumpf and supervisor Chroninger should be treated as having received the information because they had the opportunity to read Plaintiff's medical report, the information was communicated to three people at most. Three people do not constitute "the public at large."

Plaintiff cannot meet the publicity prong of the test. As to the fourth element, Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant, or its authorized agents, made the disclosure intentionally, even as to Plaintiff's mother. It is undisputed that nothing on the outside of the envelope received in the ARO mail room indicated that it contained a confidential medical record. Kornrumpf's testimony that she did not read the form beyond Plaintiff's name, and did not know that it was a confidential medical record, is undisputed. Chroninger's testimony that he did not read the form, and did not know that it was a confidential medical record, is undisputed. It is a logical impossibility for a party intentionally to disclose information that it does not know it has. Furthermore, the disclosure would not have occurred without Plaintiff's mother's intervening act of opening and reading the medical records without authorization from Defendant. Plaintiff cannot meet the intent prong of the test. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Count IV is granted. *** Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

1. Do you think Yoder should have prevailed on his state law claim of invasion of privacy? Why or why not?

2. Do you think this case would have been decided differently if the mail clerk and Yoder's supervisor did read the doctor's statements?

3. How many people would have to read a sensitive document such as this to meet the public disclosure requirement for an individual to prevail on his or her claim?