Court Opinion

ID: 9629072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:36:36.392843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:15.238233
License: Public Domain

WARREN, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that this case must be reversed. I disagree only with that portion of the opinion which purports to create a new tort called “breach of confidential relationship.”
The majority creates a new tort without favoring us with a statement of its elements or telling us why a new tort is necessary. The tort of invasion of privacy is 43 years old and is alive and well in Oregon. See Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or 482, 113 P2d 438 (1941).
The majority holds that plaintiffs complaint states a cause of action for invasion of privacy in that it alleges an intentional intrusion on plaintiffs private affairs, which would be offensive to a reasonable person. Clearly, a physician who has a confidential relationship with a patient and a duty not to disclose the private matters of those who trust his discretion, invades his patient’s right to privacy when he breaches that trust. The majority says all it needs to when it says:
“ * * * This conclusion [that such a disclosure is a violation of the patient’s right to privacy] is consistent with that of other jurisdictions which have almost universally recognized that such a disclosure is a violation of the patient’s right to privacy * * 68 Or App at 584.
The cases cited by the majority do not hold that there is a new and separate tort of “breach of confidential relationship.” The most that can be said of any of them is that they hold that a physician has a duty not to divulge private facts about his patient and, if he does, he must respond in *586damages. Several of the cases cited by the majority expressly characterize the cause of action as one for invasion of privacy; the balance do not identify any legal theory.
As can be seen, I do not disagree that plaintiff can recover for the physician’s breach of his confidential relationship but, for her to do that, no new legal theory is necessary.