Medical Privacy Initiative

Case Summary
    A.T. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance       

A chiropractor sustained injuries in an auto accident. She made a claim under her own insurance policy with State Farm for uninsured motorist benefits. In the course of pursuing her claims, she provided medical records regarding her mental and psychological history and treatment. The records disclosed a psychological disorder. (As is customary in first party claims, the insurance company will deny benefits if it is not provided with a full release allowing it to obtain all medical records anyway.)

          Because State Farm was HER insurance company, she thought that the records would be held in confidence.

          She was to be sorely disappointed, because some time later, she testified as an expert witness in litigation between of her patients and, guess who, State Farm. During cross-examination, State Farm’s attorney asked her about HER (not her patient’s) psychological history and treatment, including the specific psychological disorder diagnosis. He did this solely to discredit the chiropractor’s otherwise credible testimony concerning the condition of her patient, which the lawsuit was really supposed to be about.

          The chiropractor sued State Farm, justifiably, for extreme and outrageous conduct, intentional interference with contractual relationship, bad faith breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of a confidential relationship.

          Amazingly, State Farm with its legions of lawyers was able to convince the court that what State Farm had done was perfectly legitimate. The court ruled, essentially, that the good chiropractor should have entered into a confidentiality agreement with State Farm before disclosing the information, if she expected State Farm to keep it confidential.

          Unbelievable! Had she demanded a confidentiality agreement before disclosing the information, I doubt that State Farm would have agreed. Most likely State Farm would have demanded an unrestricted medical authorization absent which it would deny the claim. That would be typical of the arrogance of insurance companies.

This case simply screams for a legislative solution!

This site is the property of Ryman Consulting, Inc. Any inquires should be sent to: MedPrivacy@abac.com