Bagent v. Blessing Care Corp.

Slip Opinion dated Jan. 19, 2007

Hospitals – breach of patient confidentiality
In this case, the plaintiff sued her hospital and a phlebotomist the hospital employed because the employee disclosed information regarding the plaintiff’s pregnancy to the plaintiff’s sister. It was disclosed that the defendant was friends with the plaintiff’s sister and disclosed the information while they were talking at a tavern.

Section 228 of the Second Restatement of Agency identifies three criteria in determining whether an employee’s acts are within the scope of employment. The Supreme Court held that all three criteria must be met to conclude that an employee was acting within the scope of employment. The main criteria at issue in this case was the first, whether it was the kind of conduct he/she is employed to perform. The ultimate question, therefore, is whether or not the loss resulting from the employee’s acts should justly be considered as one of the normal risks to be borne by the employer. Here, as a phlebotomist, Defendant’s duties included drawing blood and keeping records not to divulge confidential patient information while off duty and after hours in a tavern.

The court also addressed the third element of Section 228, whether the conduct was actuated at least in part for the purpose to serve the master. Rather than the needs and requirements of the employer, it is the state of mind of the employee that is material. Here, the defendant said she disclosed the information because they were friends and because she thought the sister already knew, which was in no way based on motivation to serve the hospital.