Opinion ID: 1689923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was summary judgment dismissing the invasion of privacy claim proper?

Text: ¶ 23. The Williamsons assert that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the claim of invasion of privacy because there existed genuine issues of material fact which would preclude summary judgment. The Williamsons contend that there was an invasion of privacy by Keith publicly disclosing Kelli's private medical records. ¶ 24. This Court has described invasion of privacy as composed of four distinct and separate sub-torts: 1. The intentional intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion of another; 2. The appropriation of another's identity for an unpermitted use; 3. The public disclosure of private facts; and 4. Holding another to the public eye in a false light. Candebat v. Flanagan, 487 So.2d 207, 209 (Miss.1986). See also Plaxico v. Michael, 735 So.2d 1036, 1039 (Miss.1999) (plurality opinion). ¶ 25. Regarding the sub-tort of public disclosure of private facts, this Court has adopted the definition as outlined in Restatements (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977) which states: 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. Young v. Jackson, 572 So.2d 378, 382 (Miss.1990). Under this theory, the Williamsons must prove that Kelli's medical records were publicized by Keith. In accordance with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, cmt. a (1977), this is a different standard than publication for defamation law purposes, which requires only communication with a third person. Comment a states that Publicity, in an invasion of privacy sense, means that the matter is made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge. The difference is one of a communication that reaches, or is sure to reach, the public. Thus it is not an invasion of the right of privacy, within the rule stated in this Section, to communicate a fact concerning the plaintiff's private life to a single person or even a small group of persons. On the other hand, any publication in a newspaper or a magazine, even of small circulation, or in a handbill distributed to a large number of persons, or any broadcast over the radio, or statement made in an address to a large audience, is sufficient to give publicity within the meaning of the term as it is used in this Section. The distinction, in other words, is one between private and public communication. Id. ¶ 26. The extent of Keith's disclosure of Kelli's medical records was extremely limited. In his affidavit, Keith states that only his legal assistant and the School District's Special Education Director had access to the information, and that this was done in preparation for the scheduled due process hearing. The Williamsons do not submit any evidence of Kelli's records being published or that they were disclosed to the public by Keith. Under these circumstances, the Williamsons have not shown publicity for invasion of privacy purposes. ¶ 27. In addition, the information Keith received was no longer private because similar documents regarding Kelli's hearing loss, cochlear implant, and medical history, including documents from the Shea Clinic, had previously been published at a Jackson Public School due process hearing in 1995, which was conducted as an open hearing at the request of the Williamsons. This prior publication of Kelli's medical information is also fatal to the Williamsons' claim of invasion of privacy. ¶ 28. The trial court's granting of summary judgment on this issue was proper. This issue is without merit.