American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Chanko

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPhysician-Patient Confidentialityphysician-patient privilegeconfidentialityCPLR 4504emergency room filmingmedical privacy

Facts

Mark Chanko was treated in the emergency room of New York and Presbyterian Hospital after being struck by a vehicle, while ABC employees were present in the hospital filming a documentary series about medical trauma with the hospital's knowledge and permission. Neither Chanko nor his family members were informed that a camera crew was present, and no consent was obtained for the filming or the crew's presence. Chanko died less than an hour after arriving, and ABC filmed both his treatment and death declaration, as well as the physician informing the family of his death. Sixteen months later, Chanko's widow saw the episode on television, recognized her husband and the events shown, and then informed the other family members, who also watched it.

Issue

Whether the estate sufficiently stated a cause of action against the hospital and treating physician for breach of physician-patient confidentiality based on allowing ABC personnel to film and view the patient's treatment without consent. Whether the family members sufficiently stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the filming and broadcast of the patient's final moments without consent.

Rule

On a pre-answer motion to dismiss, courts must liberally construe the complaint, accept its allegations as true, and give plaintiffs every favorable inference, including considering affidavits to remedy pleading defects. The elements of breach of physician-patient confidentiality are: (1) a physician-patient relationship, (2) physician acquisition of information relating to treatment or diagnosis, (3) disclosure of that confidential information to a person not connected with the patient's treatment in a manner allowing identification, (4) lack of consent, and (5) damages; the claim does not require that the disclosed information be embarrassing. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or disregard of a substantial probability of causing severe emotional distress, causation, and severe emotional distress, and the outrageousness requirement is exceedingly rigorous.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a hospital in Cleveland, Dr. Nina Patel treated Owen Mercer for internal bleeding after a construction accident. With the hospital's permission, a freelance videographer making a promotional film for a fictional medical charity stood in the trauma bay and recorded Owen's treatment without telling him; the footage was never released publicly, but two editors later reviewed the raw video.

If Owen's estate sues the hospital and Dr. Patel for breach of physician-patient confidentiality and the defendants move to dismiss before discovery, which is the strongest argument for denying dismissal?

Explanation. Denial of dismissal is proper because the majority held that a confidentiality claim may rest on allowing persons not connected with treatment to observe or later view confidential treatment information, not just on any eventual public airing. The rule is broad, covers information learned through treatment-related observation, and survives the patient's death. The claim does not require that the information be embarrassing. (Derived from American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Chanko (n.d.).)