Failure to State a Claim General Release Invasion of Privacy Medical Records

Hernandez v. Quinn, PICS Case No. 17-1069 (C.P. Philadelphia July 10, 2017) Massiah-Jackson, J. (33 pages).

Dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice was proper where he signed a release in a prior case which extended to any claims against defendants in the instant case. Additionally, plaintiff failed to allege sufficient specific facts to constitute a claim for relief.

Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against Jay Glickman, D.O. claiming he deviated from the standard of care and plaintiff developed cancer as a result. Defendants in the current case were the attorneys for Dr. Glickman in the malpractice action. During the course of the malpractice proceeding, defendants engaged in discovery in which they obtained plaintiff's medical and psychiatric records. Plaintiff and Dr. Glickman ultimately reached a settlement agreement in the malpractice matter, wherein plaintiff signed a full and final release of all claims, causes of action and demands. The terms of the release extended not only to Dr. Glickman, but to other persons as well.

Plaintiff filed this action against defendants for invasion of privacy and other torts. Defendants raised preliminary objections, and the court dismissed with prejudice all of plaintiff's claims for failure to plead sufficient facts to support his causes of action.

The court found that plaintiff's allegations were inconsistent and lacked the specificity necessary to state any claim against defendants. Plaintiff was an involuntary public figure who placed his personal life at issue when he filed the medical malpractice claim. The court noted that a plaintiff in a civil case had a diminished expectation of privacy. Plaintiff did not allege any facts to indicate that the documents regarding his health were obtained by means of an improper intrusion. Dr. Glickman's attorney distributed the discovery materials to only one other person, another attorney at his firm, so plaintiff's personal information was not published to a wide audience. Furthermore, Pennsylvania law provided no liability for the conveyance of truthful information.

Defendants argued that the release document signed by plaintiff in the settlement of the malpractice case rendered them immune from the present suit. The court agreed, because language in that release referenced "all other persons" and included a specific reference to attorneys. Plaintiff executed the settlement agreement prior to the filing of this case against defendants. The court held the general release prevented plaintiff from subsequently recovering against defendants.