OKLAHOMA CITY (Legal Newsline) - A woman who sued over photographs of her stillborn child – including a pose with angel’s wings – that hospital employees gave her as part of a “bereavement program” has a valid claim for invasion of privacy, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled.
Overturning an appeals court’s dismissal of her case, the state high court said invasion-of-privacy claims belong to whoever believes their “private affairs” have been intruded upon. Where the invasion occurred is less important, the court ruled.
Crystal Guilbeau sued Durant H.M.A. and the Medical Center of Southeastern Oklahoma after she delivered a stillborn infant in the summer of 2016. After she returned home, she received photographs of the dead child in several poses and with props including angels’ wings with what she described as the purpose of making the child “look alive and well.” The hospital said she consented to the photos, which Guilbeau denied.
Guilbeau sued the hospital for emotional distress and negligent hiring and supervision. The trial court dismissed the negligence claims in 2016 and after complicated pretrial maneuvering including dismissing her entire case with the option of refiling, Guilbeau filed a second suit in 2020 with an additional claim of invasion of privacy.
The trial court dismissed all three claims in 2021, partly because of the statute of limitations. Guilbeau appealed, where an appeals court ruled her invasion of privacy claim wasn’t barred by the statute of limitations but dismissed it anyway because she didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy over photographs of her child.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court disagreed in a June 20 decision.
“While the phrase `intrusion upon seclusion’ may conjure images of the Peeping Tom -- someone spying into another's home -- the concept is clearly broader than that,” the court ruled. “It extends to the acquisition of any information to which the general public is not entitled:”
Whether Guilbeau consented to having the photographs taken is a question for factfinders to decide, the court said, but “the right to privacy is concerned with people, not places.” The Oklahoma Supreme Court previously reversed a decision dismissing a lawsuit by a man who claimed the hospital performed an autopsy on his wife without his permission, for example. And the Georgia Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit by the parents of a stillborn child whose deformed body was photographed by hospital personnel under the theory the right of privacy belonged to the parents, not just the child.
“It was Guilbeau herself who experienced the miscarriage, and she was presented with photographs directly related to her experience and the handling of the remains,” the court concluded. “She has stated a claim on which relief could be granted under existing Oklahoma law.”