South Carolina State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Hedgepath, 24565
| Citation | 480 S.E.2d 724,325 S.C. 166 |
| Decision Date | 07 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 24565,24565 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Appellant, v. Larry L. HEDGEPATH, M.D., Respondent. . Heard |
Deputy General Counsel Richard P. Wilson, Staff Counsel John A. Birgerson, South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, Columbia, for appellant.
Weldon R. Johnson and R. Lewis Johnson, Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, Columbia, for respondent.
This is a medical disciplinary case. The circuit court held a South Carolina physician had no ethical duty to maintain his patients' confidences, and therefore reversed the decision of the Board of Medical Examiners (Board). The Board found respondent committed misconduct in breaching this duty, and imposed a public reprimand upon him. We reverse the circuit court's order, and reinstate the Board's decision.
Respondent is a medical doctor engaged in the general practice of medicine and addictionology. During 1989, he acted as a family therapist for a married couple, Mr. and Mrs. C. From January until May 1991, respondent was Mrs. C.'s individual therapist. In 1992, the C.'s commenced divorce litigation. Respondent provided an affidavit dated August 21, 1992, for use at the family court's temporary hearing. This affidavit was created at the request of Mr. C.'s attorney, without consulting with Mrs. C. or obtaining her consent, and was voluntary (i.e. not compelled by subpoena or other legal process). Its contents were not flattering to either party, and it is undisputed that respondent's affidavit revealed confidences entrusted to him by Mrs. C. during their doctor-patient relationship.
The Board is authorized to discipline a physician for misconduct. S.C.Code Ann. § 40-47-200 (Supp.1995). Misconduct occurs when a physician violates the principles of ethics adopted and published by the Board. Id. At the time respondent treated Mrs. C., the relevant ethical provision read:
A physician may not reveal the confidences entrusted to him in the course of medical attendance, or the deficiencies he may observe in the character of patients, unless he is required to do so by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the welfare of the individual or of the community. 26 S.C.Reg. 81-60(I).
At the time respondent gave the affidavit, the provision had been amended to read:
A physician shall respect the rights of patients, of colleagues, and of other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences within the constraints of the law. 26 S.C.Reg. 81-60(D) (Supp.1995).
The Board found respondent had violated both versions of the ethics regulation, that his misconduct was mitigated by his concern for the best interests of the C.'s children's custody which was to be decided in the temporary hearing, and that a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction. On appeal, the circuit court found the amended version of the ethics regulation applied, and that since no law prohibited respondent from making the affidavit, Reg. 81-60(D) had not been violated. The Board's order finding misconduct and imposing a sanction was reversed.
The first issue is whether respondent's conduct should be judged by the ethical standard in effect at the time of the confidential communications [Reg. 81-60(I) ] or that in effect at the time of the alleged misconduct [Reg. 81-60(D) ]. We agree with the circuit court that respondent's actions should be judged by the standard in effect at the time of the alleged misconduct. Cf., In re Anonymous, 317 S.C. 10, 451 S.E.2d 391 (1994) (). We also agree with the Board, however, there is no substantive difference between the two regulations.
The second and dispositive issue is whether a physician commits ethical misconduct when he reveals a patient's confidences where the revelation is neither compelled by law (i.e. subpoena or s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCormick v. England
...is distinguishable from a duty of confidentiality. As our Supreme Court recently observed in South Carolina State Board of Medical Examiners v. Hedgepath, 325 S.C. 166, 480 S.E.2d 724 (1997): "The terms 'privilege' and 'confidences' are not synonymous, and a professional's duty to maintain ......
-
Brown v. Bi-Lo, Inc.
...within the constraints of the law." 26 S.C.Code Ann. Reg. § 81-60(D) (Supp.1995). 11. See South Carolina State Bd. of Med. Exam. v. Hedgepath, 325 S.C. 166, 480 S.E.2d 724 (1997) (Court held "[a] physician acts ethically when she maintains patient confidences, and when she provides confiden......
-
Parrott, Matter of
... ... No. 24568 ... Supreme Court of South Carolina ... Heard Dec. 4, 1996 ... Decided ... He opined that there was no medical reason Respondent could not practice law, and he ... See also State v. Ball, 292 S.C. 71, 354 S.E.2d 906 (1987), ... ...
-
Snavely v. Amisub of South Carolina, Inc.
...privilege is discernible from a duty of confidentiality. As noted by our Supreme Court in S.C. State Board of Medical Examiners v. Hedgepath, 325 S.C. 166, 169, 480 S.E.2d 724, 726 (1997): "The terms `privilege' and `confidences' are not synonymous, and a professional's duty to maintain his......
-
Data Breach Liability and Notification: What Do You Need to Know?
...Code Ann. § 37-20-200 (2008). [26] McCormick v. England, 328 S.C. 627 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997); SC State Bd. Of Med. Examiners v. Hedgepath, 325 S.C. 166 (1997). [27] F Patrick Hubbard & Robert L. Felix, The South Carolina Law of Torts, 566 (4th Ed. 2011). [28] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 6......