Britton Cherish Walters, a nurse at Columbia/St.David's Healthcare System in Austin, Texas took matters into her own hands and consulted with a non-treating physician when she became concerned that a patient in the hospital was suffering a stroke. She did so after the treating physician did not come into the hospital to evaluate the patient, but did give instructions for futher tests and observation. The patient had in fact suffered a stoke.
Walters was referred to a hospital peer review committee for a formal determination of whether she had violated the hospital's patient confidentiality policy. She quit work before the peer review process was completed. She then sued the hospital claiming constructive discharge, defamation, tortious interference, retaliation and outrageous conduct.
In Walters v. Columbia/St. David's Healthcare System, Tex. Ct. App. No. 03-03-00582-
CV, (3/17/05), the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District at Austin, held, in effect in upholding the summary dismissal of her case, that Walter's perception that the circumstances required outside consultation did not justify her violation of the hospital's medical privacy policy. The Texas Health and Safety Code prohibits the revelation of patient medical information even without a name attached. This case brings into tension the right of privacy protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and other more stringent state statutes like Texas and the need to protect the health of patients when a treating physician is not available. The Court determined that the hospital was immune from liability to Walters under the qualified privilege provided under peer review statutes.
This case will undoubtedly raise a lot more concern among health care providers because of the patient danger issues than any solace it brings because of the enforcement of peer review protection.
Comments