Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06013/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06013-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSF I L E D 

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tent.'1 Circuit 

ROBERT WAYNE LEE 

Plaintiff-Appeliant, 

' 

vs. 

DR. SCOTT CALHOUN, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

SCOTT W. CALHOUN, M.D., INC., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

NOVO G 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 90-6013 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. Civ. 88-354-T) 

Dianna s. Wisdom, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

George W. ~aull, Jr., (George F. Short and Cynthia L. Sparling, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; of counsel, Short, Barnes, Wiggins, 

Margo & Adler, with him on the brief) for Defendant-Appellee Scott Calhoun, M.D. 

Before MOORE and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,* Senior District 

Judge. 

BROWN, Senior District Judge. 

* Honorable Wesley E. Brown, United States Senior District Judge, 

District of Kansas, sitting by designation 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff Robert Wayne Lee filed suit for medical malpractice. 

The claim arose from emergency surgery performed upon plaintiff to 

repair a perforated bowel. When the suit was filed, a reporter 

approached the defendant Dr. Calhoon. 1 The doctor explained that 

plaintiff's medical condition, requiring emergency surgery, was a 

consequence of patients who are AIDS carriers. This explanation 

appeared in a news item published in The Daily Oklahoman. 

The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff went to the emergency 

room of Baptist Hospital on May 3, 1987. He was examined by Dr. 

Crook and Dr. Camp, who diagnosed "possible acute appendicitis," 

and defendant Dr. Calhoon was called in for an evaluation. (Record 

Vol. II, Item 152.) Dr. crook and Dr. Camp are not defendants in 

this action. Plaintiff signed a consent form for an appendectomy. 

Dr. Calhoon operated on the plaintiff. The surgery revealed that 

he suffered from a perforated bowel rather than appendicitis. Dr. 

Calhoon the ref ore performed a colostomy. A blood test subsequently 

revealed that plaintiff had tested positive for AIDS (the "HIV" 

virus). 

Plaintiff then filed suit claiming Calhoon had misdiagnosed 

his condition and failed to obtain his consent for the unnecessary 

surgical procedure which was performed. Plaintiff's complaint, 

filed March 1, 1988, sought $38 million damages. The interview 

with the reporter took place on March 2, the day after the lawsuit 

"Calhoon" is the correct spelling of the defendant's 

surname. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 2 
was filed. The news item which appeared in the Daily Oklahoman was 

as follows: 

Calhoon said Tuesday that Lee needed emergency surgery 

because he had a perforated colon and was infected with 

the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus. 

"He was seen in the emergency room and thought to have 

appendicitis," Calhoon said. 

"This was before we identified that he was a carrier of 

the AIDS virus. He needed emergency surgery and at that 

time a perforated colon was identified. 

"Life-saving surgery was performed, which was a temporary 

colostomy. He had a preoperative diagnosis of 

appendicitis because he gave us no history of being an 

AIDS carrier. 

"If we had known of his AIDS exposure, other more 

esoteric types of infections, which are common in immunocompromised hosts, would have been considered," Calhoon 

said. 

After this story appeared in the paper, plaintiff amended his 

complaint to include defamation, invasion of privacy, and breach of 

doctor/patient confidentiality. 

The malpractice claim was dismissed, 2 and summary judgments 

were entered in favor of defendant Calhoon upon findings that 

plaintiff had waived his physician-patient privilege, and that 

plaintiff had failed to establish his right to proceed on his 

2 Plaintiff moved to dismiss with prejudice all of the 

defendants in this action with regard to his medical malpractice 

claims and to dismiss with out prejudice the defendants Baptist 

Medical Center of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Healthcare and Baptist Medical 

Plaza Associates with regard to his invasion of privacy and 

disclosure of private information claims, reserving these claims 

only as to Dr. Calhoon. Record, Vol I, Item 86. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 3 
claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, and "intrusion upon 

seclusion." 

In this appeal plaintiff contends that the district court 

erred in finding that plaintiff had waived the physician/patient 

privilege, and had further erred in finding that Dr. Calhoon's 

statements were conditionally privileged and did not violate 

plaintiff's privacy under Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 652B. 

Plaintiff further contends that the trial court unduly limited 

discovery, and that disputed factual issues, and lack of consent 

for administering the AIDS test precluded dismissal of his claims 

by summary judgment. 

Following our review of the record, we find no error and 

affirm the judgment. 

The trial court entered a number of orders on cross motions 

for summary judgment before reaching a final judgment in this case, 

and it is necessary to discuss these in some detail. 

By an order of March 3, 1989, the court dismissed plaintiff's 

claims of defamation, invasion of privacy and breach of 

confidentiality against Baptist Medical Center, Oklahoma Health 

Care & Baptist Medical Plaza Associated (Record Vol. I, Docket No. 

119); and by order of March 16, (Docket No. 124), the court found 

that plaintiff failed to state a claim against these defendants, 

and their motion to dismiss was granted. 

Additional orders were entered on March 16, (Record Vol. II, 

Docket Nos. 122, 123, 124). The court found that Dr. Calhoon was 

entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's defamation claim 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 4 
because his statement regarding plaintiff's status as an AIDS 

carrier was true. The court denied both parties I motions for 

summary judgment on other claims. The parties were directed to 

supplement the record with reference to plaintiff's claims for 

invasion of privacy as set out under Restatement (Second) of Torts 

§ 652A. Thus, one who invades the privacy of another is liable for 

resulting harm when there is an "unreasonable intrusion upon the 

seclusion of another" (§ 652B), or "appropriation of the other's 

name or likeness" (§ 652C), or "publicity that unreasonably places 

the other in a false light before the public" (§ 652E). 

Plaintiff's claim of "intrusion upon seclusion" is based on 

provisions of§ 652B: 

One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, 

upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private 

affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other 

for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be 

highly offensive to a reasonable person. 

Section 652B liability does not require publication of private 

matters. The invasion may consist of forced entry into a person's 

home, eavesdropping or spying upon a person's private affairs, or 

tampering with a person's private papers or mail. 

Plaintiff's "invasion of privacy" claim is based upon§ 652D 

which provides in pertinent part that: 

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the 

private life of another is subject to liability to the 

other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter 

publicized is of a kind that 

(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, 

and 

(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public. 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 5 
Liability under this section is based upon publicity given to true 

statements of fact. "There is no liability when the defendant 

merely gives further publicity to information about the plaintiff 

that is already public." Comment b, § 652D. 

In McCormack v. Oklahoma Publishing Co •• 613 P. 2d 737 {Okl. 

1980), the Oklahoma court recognized a right of action for invasion 

of privacy, if a plaintiff could establish the public disclosure of 

a private fact, when such fact was not of "legitimate public 

concern. 113 

The district court correctly found that plaintiff became a 

public figure by filing his lawsuit, since the size of his claim--

$38 million--and the nature of the claim--malpractice, had 

attracted the attention of the news media. As the court noted, 

these matters are of legitimate public concern "because of the 

public interest or debate regarding the size of litigation claims 

and jury awards ... and the public concern in policing failures in 

the medical profession." In Gilbert v. Medical Economics Company. 

665 F. 2d 305 {10th Cir. 1981), the defendant published an article 

discussing the personal and professional problems of a physician 

involved in two incidents of alleged malpractice. This court 

3 In McCormack a news story related that plaintiff, "a onetime gambler and illegal casino operator in Oklahoma City," had 

connections with the Mafia and organized crime. Plaintiff claimed 

that the events mentioned occurred more than twenty years before, 

and that the publication invaded his right of privacy. While 

recognizing the tort of invasion of privacy, the court found that 

plaintiff made no allegation that the facts were private and not of 

public record, and did not allege that the facts were not of 

legitimate public concern. Dismissal of the case was affirmed upon 

the finding that there could be no liability for publicizing facts 

which were matters of public record. 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 6 
affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the publisher, 

recognizing that the article was of legitimate public interest, 

since it involved the competency of licensed professionals. We 

there noted that the publication of plaintiff's psychiatric and 

marital problems were "substantially relevant to the newsworthy 

topic," through "the rational inference that plaintiff's personal 

problems were the underlying cause of the acts of alleged 

malpractice. 11 Gilbert v. Medical Economics Co. supra, 665 F. 2d at 

308-309. 

With respect to the question of whether the doctor's comments 

pertained to his defense of the lawsuit, the court ordered Dr. 

Calhoon to provide evidence of this fact within five days of the 

order. On June 30, Dr. Calhoon supplied an affidavit establishing 

this connection (Record Vol II, Item 132): 

I affirmatively state that the statement made by me in 

response to questions by the newspaper reporter, and as 

printed in the newspaper article at issue in this case, 

were simply expressions of the facts and issues relevant 

to my defense in this multi-million dollar lawsuit about 

which I was being questioned. Mr. Lee's original lawsuit 

alleged that I did not advise him prior to the surgery 

that he might have a perforated bowel and require a 

colostomy. In my defense, had Mr. Lee advised me or had 

I known prior to surgery that Mr. Lee was an AIDS virus 

carrier, I would have been alerted to a higher 

probability that he might have a perforated bowel due to 

more esoteric types of infections which are common with 

immuno-compromised patients such as Mr. Lee, and I would 

have so informed him. 

In this case, Dr. Calhoon's comments clearly pertained to his 

defense of the lawsuit, and, as found by the trial court, "were 

sufficiently related to the news story to preclude them from 

serving as the basis for an invasion of privacy claim." 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 7 
The district court also found that defendant Calhoon was 

entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's § 652 invasion of 

privacy claim because even if the plaintiff had not become an 

involuntary public figure, with a lawsuit which was a matter of 

public interest, Dr. Calhoon's statements were conditionally 

privileged under§ 594. The elements of conditional privilege as 

set out in§ 593 provide that one who publishes defamatory material 

is not liable if "the matter is published upon an occasion that 

makes it conditionally privileged, and the privilege is not 

abused." The trial court correctly found that the defendant did 

not abuse the conditional privilege. 

Restatement provides that: 

Section 594 of the 

An occasion makes a publication conditionally privileged 

if the circumstances induce a correct or reasonable 

belief that 

(a) there is information that affects a sufficiently 

important interest of the publisher, and 

(b) the recipient's knowledge of the defamatory matter 

will be of service in the lawful protection of the 

interest. 

The principle set out in§ 594 simply means that one whose 

reputation is under attack has the right to defend himself: 

A conditional privilege exists . • • when the person 

making the publication reasonably believes that his 

interest in his own reputation has been unlawfully 

invaded by another person and that the defamatory matter 

that he publishes about the other is reasonably necessary 

to defend himself. The privilege here is analogous to 

that of self-defense against battery, assault or false 

imprisonment ... Thus the defendant may publish in an 

appropriate manner anything that he reasonably believes 

to be necessary to defend his own reputation against the 

defamation of another ... (Comment k, § 594) 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 8 
The occasion upon which Dr. Calhoon made his statement and 

explanation, in response to the reporter's inquiry into the 

circumstances of the lawsuit, was clearly an instance in which Dr. 

Calhoon was entitled to provide information that affected his 

important interest in his own reputation as a medical provider. 

Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that defendant abused his 

conditional privilege, and under such circumstance, the trial court 

properly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant upon the 

§ 652 invasion of privacy claim. 

As to plaintiff's claim for breach of an II implied agreement of 

confidentiality, 11 the district court found that plaintiff had 

waived the physician-patient privilege under 76 Okl. Stat. § 19, 

which provides in pertinent part that: 

In cases involving a claim for personal inJury or death 

against any practitioner of the healing arts or a 

licensed hospital, arising out of patient care, where any 

person has placed his physical or mental condition in 

issue by the commencement of any action, proceeding or 

suit for damages, ... he shall be deemed to waive any 

privilege granted by law concerning any communication 

made to a physician or health care provider ••• or any 

knowledge obtained by such physician or heal th care 

provider by personal examination of any such patient; 

provided that, before any such communication, medical or 

hospital record or testimony is admitted in evidence in 

any proceeding it must be material and relevant to an 

issue therein according to existing rules of evidence. 

{Emphasis supplied). 

It is clear that Dr. Calhoon's comments were entirely relevant 

to the medical malpractice action in question, and the information 

he gave was the subject matter of his defense to plaintiff's 

allegation of malpractice. Indeed, his explanation of the cause 

and need for emergency surgery entirely justified the dismissal of 

9 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 9 
all malpractice claims. Here the Oklahoma statute is very plain, 

and all inclusive--it covered "any privilege," and "any 

communication," with reference to "any physical or mental 

condition." Under Oklahoma law the language of the statute must 

prevail. In cave Springs Public School District I. 30, 613 P. 2d 

1046 {Okl. 1980), the rule was stated in this manner: 

Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, 

and its meaning clear and no occasion exists for the 

application of rules of construction, the statute will be 

accorded the meaning as expressed by the language therein 

employed. 

Further support for the finding of a waiver of the physicianpatient privilege is found in the trial court's reference to 12 

o.s. § 1443.1, which provides that expressions of opinion in regard 

to judicial proceedings are not actionable as libel: 

1443 .1. Privileged communication defined--Exemption from 

libel 

A. A privileged publication or communication is one 

made: 

First. In any legislative or judicial proceeding or any 

other proceeding authorized by law; 

Second. In the proper discharge of an official duty; 

Third. By a fair and true report of any legislative or 

judicial or other proceeding authorized by law, or 

anything said in the course thereof, and any and all 

expressions of opinion in regard thereto, and criticisms 

thereon, and any and all criticisms upon the official 

acts of any and all public officers, except where the 

matter stated of and concerning the official act done, or 

of the officer, falsely imputes crime to the officer so 

criticized. 

B. No publication which under this section would be 

privileged shall be punishable as libel. 

10 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 10 
The trial court properly ruled that plaintiff waived the 

physician-patient privilege, and the entry of summary judgment in 

favor of defendant upon the claim of breach of the implied warranty 

of confidentiality was appropriate. 

With respect to plaintiff's "invasion of privacy" claim, 

(§ 652B, supra, intrusion upon seclusion) which was based upon the 

allegation that blood had been drawn for the AIDS test without his 

permission, the court permitted the parties to submit additional 

information concerning the matter. 

on July 24, 1989, the court allowed plaintiff time to conduct 

additional discovery "limited to the question of whether defendant 

Calhoon ordered the AIDS tests or knew that they had been ordered 

and approved or ratified such," (Record Vol. II, Item 135). 

On October 11, 1989, the court entered an order and final 

judgment granting defendant Calhoon summary judgment on plaintiff's 

remaining claim for invasion of privacy under § 652B because 

plaintiff failed to provide evidence to support such claim. Record 

Vol. II, Items 144, 145. On plaintiff's motion, the order and 

judgment were vacated and plaintiff was granted additional time 

until December 4 to conduct any further discovery necessary to 

establish his invasion of privacy claim. Record Vol. II, Item 149, 

Order of November 1, 1989. After reviewing all of the evidence 

presented by the parties on the issue, the court determined that 

plaintiff had failed to submit sufficient proof to controvert the 

evidence submitted by Dr. Calhoon which was to the effect that he 

did not order or authorize AIDS tests on the occasion in question. 

11 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 11 
In accordance with these findings, judgment was again entered in 

favor of defendant, Dr. Calhoon. (Order and Judgment of December 

12, 1989, Record Vol. II, Items 156, 157.) 

In sworn statements, Dr. Calhoon denied that he ordered tests 

to determine plaintiff's AIDS status. (Vol. II, Item 128, Exhibits 

"A," 11 B11 ). Dr. Calhoon first learned that plaintiff was HIV 

positive on May 5, two days following the operation. 

Plaintiff's argument that the tests were ordered by Dr. 

Calhoon is pure speculation and contrary to the evidence presented 

to the trial court. In lab reports submitted by plaintiff himself, 

several other doctors are noted as requesting tests--i.e, Doctors 

Gilcher, Crook, Camp, and "Non-staff M.D." 

Exhibits to Item 133.) 

(Record Vol. II, 

On the basis of affidavits and depositions presented on the 

issue the trial court made these findings: 

The plaintiff has filed his supplemental response 

and, in addition to failing to explain his exhibit "B," 

has failed to submit sufficient proof to controvert the 

evidence submitted by the defendant that he did not order 

or authorize either of the two AIDS tests. To the 

contrary, the only credible evidence establishes that the 

initial test was ordered by Dr. Crook and the subsequent 

test was automatically required by the Baptist Medical 

Center's blood bank due to the results of the HTLV-III 

test. 4 

Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to controvert 

defendant's evidence that Dr. Calhoon was not the one who ordered 

the AIDS test. The trial court properly dismissed the § 652B 

4 See Depositions, Record Vol II, Exh. A to Docket 153 and 

Docket 154, Deposition of Carolyn Taylor, Baptist Medical Center 

Blood Bank. 

12 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 12 
complaint because there was no genuine issue of conflicting 

material facts on the issue. 

The rulings and judgment of the trial court were correct in 

all respects, and the Judgment is AFFIRMED. 

13 

Appellate Case: 90-6013 Document: 010110096865 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 13