LITTLE ROCK — The parents of Anne Pressly, a 26-year-old Little Rock television reporter and news anchor who died in October 2008 after being raped and savagely beaten by an intruder in her home, asked the Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday to reinstate their lawsuit against a Little Rock hospital and three people who used hospital computers to snoop through their daughter’s medical records.
Pressly’s parents, Guy and Patti Cannady, contend they should have been allowed to pursue a claim of outrage in Pulaski County Circuit Court because of the emotional harm they experienced upon learning that a doctor and two hospital workers, none of whom had any connection to Pressly’s case, illegally accessed her medical records simply to satisfy their personal curiosity.
Last October, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Leon Johnson dismissed the 2009 lawsuit, saying that claims for invasion of privacy die with the decedent under Arkansas law, leaving no legitimate “cause of action” to pursue.
Attorneys for St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center, Dr. Jay Holland and two former St. Vincent employees, Candida Griffin and Sarah Elizabeth Miller, argued before the state’s high court on Thursday that the case does indeed amount to an invasion of privacy claim — not a claim under the tort of outrage, as the plaintiffs contend.
Justices asked if Johnson specifically addressed the tort of outrage in his ruling, and attorneys replied that his ruling seemed to wrap the two issues of privacy and outrage into one — which the plaintiffs say he shouldn’t have done.
Attorney Gerry Schulze of Little Rock, arguing for reinstatement of the suit filed by Patti Cannady as the executor of her daughter’s estate, acknowledged that Arkansas Code Annotated 16-62-101(a)(2), known as the survival statute, bars after-death claims about a person’s reputation. He argued that Cannady, however, wasn’t alleging any harm to her or her daughter’s reputation.
Schulze noted that while case law dating back to 1883 reinforces the prohibition against pursuing certain claims beyond the affected person’s death, the claims in those older cases are different from Cannady’s.
In those days, Schulze said, the torts of outrage and invasion of privacy didn’t exist. Now, “the law has developed to recognize legitimate emotional injuries. ... This is a legitimate case for outrage and intrusion on the seclusion of the plaintiff.”
Schulze said he and attorney Bobby McDaniel of Jonesboro aren’t asking the court to overturn any precedent or to reinterpret the Arkansas survival statute, because both pertain to reputational injuries.
“What constitutes outrage must be determined on a caseby-case basis,” Schulze wrote in his brief, adding, “What happened here is that defendants exploited their position as members of the health care profession to illegally access the medical records of [Pressly] in order to satisfy their curiosity about a popular public figure. This type of warrantless voyeurism is highly offensive to a reasonable person.”
Attorney Beverly Rowlett, arguing for the hospital, told the justices that the claim that Cannady is pursuing, whatever Schulze calls it, “is a relational right to privacy claim, which the law says cannot be recognized.”
Justice Paul Danielson asked attorneys several questions about whether Johnson, in dismissing the lawsuit, ever pinned down the nature of Cannady’s claim or specifically addressed the claim of outrage.
“I think what the trial court did was decide that the two claims we made were really one,” Schulze replied.
Attorney Brian G. Brooks, representing Holland, told the justices, “You will not find a single case that will say the invasion of privacy of an adult child causes a relational right to privacy in adult parents.”
He added, “You will not find any precedent for the notion that the invasion of privacy of an adult child creates an outrage claim for the adult’s parents.”
Brooks said he was unaware of “anything like this that has been declared an outrage claim. ... There is not sufficient evidence to sustain the damages element for outrage.”
Schulze told the court that the case presents “an opportunity to set the standards in the community. We need to say certain things are intolerable, and we’re not going to let you get by with it just because the victim dies.”
After the arguments, Schulze and McDaniel told reporters that the case needs to be tried to protect a lot of people, not just the specific parties in the Pressly matter.
Curtis Vance of Marianna was convicted of capital murder in Pressly’s death in 2009 and is serving a life sentence.
The workers and doctor pleaded guilty in federal court to misdemeanor medical-privacy violations, and were each sentenced in October 2009 to one year of probation. In addition, Holland was fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service; Miller was fined $2,500 and Griffin was fined $1,500.
Arkansas, Pages 12 on 09/14/2012