INDIANAPOLIS (Legal Newslne) - A medical clinic must defend itself against claims a doctor accessed the medical records of dozens of women, tracking them down in bars and on social media, hugging them and badgering them to go out with him, an Indiana appeals court ruled.
The clinic won dismissal on a claim of “intrusion into emotional solace,” which doesn’t yet exist under Indiana law, but the Court of Appeals said a trial court must decide whether the doctor is liable for causing emotional distress and whether he was acting within the scope of employment when he did it.
The appeals court said it couldn’t establish the tort of intrusion into emotional solace but that the Indiana Supreme Court or the legislature may do so in future.
Dr. Akitto Ledda was working for Deaconess Clinic in 2020 when a former patient complained he had accessed her medical records and then contacted her on social media, “messaging me ‘hey, come over’ and provided an address.”
Deaconess dropped its investigation after determining Dr. Ledda didn’t use his Deaconess email address.
In April 2021 the clinic installed software to detect suspicious activity and learned that Dr. Ledda had improperly accessed records of 46 people who hadn’t been his patients. He admitted doing it and was fired.
Thirteen of the women notified of the breach said Dr. Ledda had met them in bars, online or at work. Plaintiff Nicole Haag said she met the doctor at a bar, then he seemed to follow her and friends to other bars, even messaging her in April 2021 to ask if she would be going out to the bars one night.
The same day he accessed her chart, she said he showed up at a bar where she was present and she was later drugged and had to be carried out.
Another plaintiff, Ashley Schimmelman, met the doctor at a bar, after which he texted her numerous times including telling her from across the bar “she looked really good.” She blocked his number but he showed up at her workplace with cookies and a letter.
A trial court dismissed the case, with the plaintiffs acknowledging Indiana doesn’t recognize intrusion into emotional solace as a tort and the judge finding Dr. Ledda didn’t intend to cause emotional distress and wasn’t acting within the scope of employment.
The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of intrusion on solitude but disagreed with the other two findings in a a June 5 decision by Judge Nancy Vaidik. The Indiana Supreme Court has consistently refused to hear appeals of cases involving intrusion on solitude, the appeals court said, so it was up to either the Supreme Court or the legislature to recognize it as a tort.
The Supreme Court also has upheld invasion of privacy claims where the information was made public, also weighing heavily against recognizing privacy breaches where the information wasn’t disclosed to anyone else.
Deaconess wasn’t entitled to dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, however, because recklessness is enough, the court said. The court also remanded the question of whether Dr. Ledda was acting in the scope of employment, citing a plaintiff expert who said the clinic should have done more to monitor his access after receiving the first complaint.
The plaintiffs are represented by Eggeson Privacy Law and Taylor Ivy of Ladendorf Law. Deaconess is represented by Bunger & Robertson.