Stubbs v. North Memorial Medical Center
| Decision Date | 14 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. C4-89-918,C4-89-918 |
| Citation | 448 N.W.2d 78 |
| Parties | 17 Media L. Rep. 1090 Bonnie J. STUBBS, Appellant, v. NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., and Dr. Bryan Hubble, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Invasion of privacy and tortious breach of the physician/client relationship are not recognized as causes of action in Minnesota.
2. The trial court erred in stating that Minnesota does not recognize implied contracts.
3. Evidence of loss of sleep, cold sores, headaches and sore throats do not indicate sufficient severity of emotional distress to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
4. A person undergoing same-day surgery and receiving preoperative and postoperative treatment at her physician's office does not fit the definition of "patient" in Minn.Stat. § 144.651, subd. 2 (1988), the Patients' Bill of Rights.
Russell H. Crowder and Beverly K. Dodge, Steffen & Munstenteiger, P.A., Anoka, for Bonnie J. Stubbs, appellant.
David Alsop, Gislason, Doslund, Hunter & Malecki, New Ulm, for North Memorial Medical Center, et al., respondents.
Jerome C. Briggs and Regina M. Chu, Bassford, Heckt, Lockhart, Truesdell & Briggs, P.A., Minneapolis, for Dr. Bryan Hubble, respondent.
Heard, considered and decided by SCHUMACHER, P.J., and FORSBERG and GARDEBRING, JJ.
This case arises from the unauthorized publication of "before" and "after" photographs of appellant's cosmetic surgery.
On July 15, 1988, the trial court granted summary judgment on all of appellant's claims in favor of respondent, North Memorial Medical Center. On December 27, 1988, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent, Dr. Bryan Hubble, on all of appellant's claims, except her claim of a violation of Minn.Stat. § 144.651 (1988), the Patients' Bill of Rights. Appellant seeks review of the entry of summary judgment granted to North Memorial and partial summary judgment granted to Dr. Hubble. Dr. Hubble filed a notice of review claiming the trial court erred in denying his request for summary judgment on appellant's Patients' Bill of Rights claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
Respondent Dr. Bryan Hubble performed cosmetic surgery on appellant Bonnie Stubbs. The surgery was performed on an outpatient basis at a same-day surgery center. Dr. Hubble photographed appellant before and after the surgery on her chin and nose.
On September 4, 1986, North Memorial Medical Center began distributing copies of a promotional/educational publication entitled "Sketches." "Before" and "after" photographs of appellant's face, taken by Dr. Hubble, were contained in "Sketches." Appellant was not identified. Appellant's photographs appeared on the same page as unidentified "before" and "after" photographs of a patient's breast reduction and abdominoplasty (removal of fat from the abdomen). Appellant gave no consent for the publication of the photos.
Appellant alleges that as a result of the publication of her photographs, she lost sleep, and had sore throats, cold sores and headaches.
Appellant commenced this action against North Memorial alleging invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of Minn.Stat. § 144.651 (1988), the Patients' Bill of Rights. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of North Memorial.
Appellant's causes of action against Dr. Hubble include invasion of privacy, tortious breach of the physician/client relationship, breach of an implied contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the Patients' Bill of Rights. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Hubble on all of appellant's claims, with the exception of the violation of the Patients' Bill of Rights claim.
The trial court determined that invasion of privacy, tortious breach of the physician/client relationship and breach of implied contract are not recognized as causes of action in Minnesota. The trial court concluded that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress, specifically finding that appellant's alleged distress did not meet the necessary standard of severity. Finally, the trial court determined that the Patients' Bill of Rights applied with respect to Dr. Hubble, but not with respect to North Memorial.
1. Did the trial court err in finding that invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract and tortious breach of the physician/client relationship are not recognizable causes of action in Minnesota?
2. Did the trial court err in concluding that appellant failed to allege sufficient facts to show intentional infliction of emotional distress?
3. Did the trial court err in its application of Minn.Stat. § 144.651 (1988), the Patients' Bill of Rights?
On appeal from a summary judgment it is the function of the reviewing court only to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. Betlach v. Wayzata Condominium, 281 N.W.2d 328, 330 (Minn.1979). The reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was granted. Grondahl v. Bulluck, 318 N.W.2d 240, 242 (Minn.1982).
Minnesota has never recognized a cause of action for invasion of privacy, although many other states have done so. Hendry v. Conner, 303 Minn. 317, 319, 226 N.W.2d 921, 923 (1975). However, when considering claims for invasion of privacy, the courts have identified factors necessary to support such a claim, were it to be recognized. Id. at 318, 226 N.W.2d at 922-23.
The tort, invasion of privacy, can be of four different types: (1) unreasonable invasion upon the seclusion of another; (2) appropriation of the other's name or likeness; (3) unreasonable publicity given to the others' private life; or (4) publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public. Prosser, Torts (4 ed.) pp. 802-818. In the instant case, appellant alleges that unreasonable publicity has been given to her private life and that the publicity has unreasonably placed her in a false light.
Where, as here, unwanted publicity is given to an aspect of an individual's life which is inherently private, justice would seem to require that there be some form of redress under the law. It is especially distressing that the published information was disclosed by a physician. There are few relationships between individuals more sacrosanct than that between a physician and patient.
It is not, however, the function of this court to establish new causes of action. The long established rule in Minnesota is that invasion of privacy is not recognized as a cause of action and for this reason the trial court is affirmed on this issue.
Appellant argues that Dr. Hubble and North Memorial intentionally inflicted emotional distress resulting in a loss of sleep, cold sores, headaches and sore throats.
To establish the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress appellant must prove: (1) the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct was intentional or reckless; (3) appellant suffered emotional distress; and (4) that distress was severe. Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428, 438-39 (Minn.1983). To be considered "extreme and outrageous," the actionable conduct must be so atrocious that it passes the boundaries of decency and is utterly intolerable to the civilized community. Id. at 439.
"Severe emotional distress" is defined as distress which is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Id. at 439. The Hubbard court notes that the operation of this tort is sharply limited to cases involving particularly egregious facts. Id. In Hubbard, the plaintiff's allegations that, as a result of the emotional distress, he suffered from stomach disorders, a skin rash and high blood pressure, were determined not to be sufficiently severe. Id.
Appellant's allegations of lost sleep, sore throats, cold sores and headaches fail to meet the severity standard set out by the court in Hubbard. On this basis, we determine that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment against both respondents on appellant's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. We do not, therefore, reach the issue of whether the publication of appellant's photographs meets the standard of extreme and outrageous conduct, or intentional and reckless, as required by Hubbard.
Appellant alleges that both North Memorial and Dr. Hubble violated Minn.Stat. § 144.651 (1988), the Patients' Bill of Rights. The trial court granted North Memorial's request for summary judgment on this issue, determining that, as to North Memorial, appellant did not fall within the definition of "patient" under Minn.Stat. § 144.651, subd. 2 (1988). Appellant has appealed this ruling. Further, the trial court denied Dr. Hubble's motion for summary judgment on this issue, determining that the act governed appellant's relationship with Dr. Hubble, and Dr. Hubble seeks review of the denial of summary judgment.
A denial of summary judgment is not ordinarily appealable. Cole v. Paulson, 380 N.W.2d 215, 219 (Minn.Ct.App.1986). The reviewing court may, however, make a determination on the issue if it is found to be in the interest of judicial efficiency to resolve all controversies between the parties at this time. See McGuire v. C. & L. Restaurant, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 605, 614 n. 11 (Minn.1984). Because we determine that no cause of action against either defendant arises under the Patients' Bill of Rights, judicial efficiency is served by resolving the issue in this appeal.
The Patients' Bill of Rights is a broad legislative enactment, articulating a series of patients' rights, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Methodist Hosp.
...259, 372 S.E.2d 711 (1988); Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 135, 490 N.Y.S.2d 735, 480 N.E.2d 349 (1985); Stubbs v. North Mem. Med. Ctr., 448 N.W.2d 78 (Minn.Ct.App.1989). Even where the cause of action has been recognized, the success rate of plaintiffs has been extremely low, perhaps......
-
Upsher-Smith Laboratories v. Mylan Laboratories
...for the trier-of-fact, AFSCME Councils 6, 14, 65 and 96 v. Sundquist, 338 N.W.2d 560, 567 (Minn.1983); Stubbs v. North Memorial Medical Center, 448 N.W.2d 78, 82 (Minn.Ct.App.1989), review denied (January 12, 1990); Carlock v. Pillsbury Co., 719 F.Supp. 791, 854 (D.Minn. 1989), and this con......
-
Larson v. Dunn
...N.W.2d 326, 327 (Minn.1979) (refusing to recognize parent's claim for alienation of child's affections); Stubbs v. North Memorial Medical Center, 448 N.W.2d 78, 83 (Minn.Ct.App.1989) (refusing to recognize claim of tortious breach of physician-client relationship); H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern......
-
Ruzicka v. Conde Nast Publications, Inc.
...portrayal in a false light. Minnesota has never recognized any cause of action for invasion of privacy. Stubbs v. North Memorial Medical Center, 448 N.W.2d 78, 80-81 (Minn.Ct.App.1989), pet. for review denied, Jan. 12, 1990; Hendry v. Conner, 303 Minn. 317, 226 N.W.2d 921, 923 (1975). Summa......
-
The strict Ohio Supreme Court decision in Biddle: third party law firm held liable for inducing disclosure of medical information.
...Detroit, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 8911 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988); Wenninger v. Muesing, 240 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. 1976); Stubbs v. North Mem'l Med. Ctr., 448 N.W. 2d 78 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989); Brandt v. Med. Defense Assocs., 856 S.W.2d 667 (Mo. 1993); State ex rel. Stufflebam v. Appelquist, 694 S.W.2d 882 (......