McCormick v. England - 328 S.C. 627, 494 S.E.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1997)

Rule:

South Carolina recognizes the common law tort of breach of a physician's duty of confidentiality. Patients have the right to be candid in their disclosures of private information to their physicians without fearing this information will be disseminated throughout the community. However, this right is not absolute and must give way when disclosure is compelled by law or is in the best interest of the patient or others.

Facts:

Sally McCormick filed a complaint alleging that her physician, Kent England, had breached a duty of non-disclosure of confidential communications concerning her mental health conditions by publishing and disseminating the communications to the public in violation of the Physicians' Patient Records Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 44-115-10 to 44-115-150 (1996). The special circuit court judge struck the allegation from the complaint, finding it did not state a cause of action. According to the judge, South Carolina law did not recognize the physician-patient privilege at common law. McCormick appealed, arguing that a physician’s duty of confidentiality existed under the common law, and that her cause of action should not have been stricken if she was entitled to recovery under any theory.

Issue:

Did South Carolina law recognize a cause of action for a physician’s breach of the duty of confidentiality?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the trial court erred in finding that South Carolina did not recognize the common law tort of breach of confidence as applied to the doctor-patient relationship. According to the court, there was an actionable tort for a doctor's breach of the duty to maintain confidences of his patient in the absence of a compelling public interest or other justification for disclosure. Although there could be some overlap with a breach of confidence cause of action, a cause of action for invasion of privacy did not preclude a finding of an independent tort for breach of confidence. The court found, however, that the duty was not absolute. The public policy of protecting the welfare of the patient's children through disclosure by the doctor should have been considered in deciding if the doctor's disclosures were privileged from the duty of confidentiality, which the trial court failed to do.