Category: Tort Law

0

Privacy’s Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality

confidential4a.bmp

Dan and I have just uploaded the final published version of our article, Privacy’s Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality up on SSRN. The paper is in print in the latest volume of the Georgetown Law Journal and we’re both very excited it’s out. Our paper tells the story of how privacy and confidentiality law diverged in Britain and America after 1890, how they have begun to converge once again in recent years, and how the law of confidentiality holds great promise for American law as it continues to grapple with the problems of personal information. Here’s the abstract:

The familiar legend of privacy law holds that Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis invented the right to privacy in 1890, and that William Prosser aided its development by recognizing four privacy torts in 1960. In this article, Professors Richards and Solove contend that Warren, Brandeis, and Prosser did not invent privacy law, but took it down a new path. Well before 1890, a considerable body of Anglo-American law protected confidentiality, which safeguards the information people share with others. Warren, Brandeis, and later Prosser turned away from the law of confidentiality to create a new conception of privacy based on the individual’s inviolate personality. English law, however, rejected Warren and Brandeis’s conception of privacy and developed a conception of privacy as confidentiality from the same sources used by Warren and Brandeis. Today, in contrast to the individualistic conception of privacy in American law, the English law of confidence recognizes and enforces expectations of trust within relationships. Richards and Solove explore how and why privacy law developed so differently in America and England. Understanding the origins and developments of privacy law’s divergent paths reveals that each body of law’s conception of privacy has much to teach the other.

The Care/Profit Tradeoff in Nursing Homes

We’re often told that inequality helps keep the US economy efficient. Cut regulation and give high rewards to those at the top, and they’ll work hard to cut costs and compete on quality, providing better and cheaper goods and services for all. Private equity firms like Carlyle Group might be considered the apotheosis of such a market-based approach, taking over companies and forcing them to meet market imperatives.

Here’s a fascinating NYT study of their influence on the nursing home industry, which “compared investor-owned homes against national averages in multiple categories, including complaints received by regulators, health and safety violations cited by regulators, fines levied, [and] the performance of homes as reported in a national database known as the Minimum Data Set Repository.” The findings describe an extraordinary combination of business efficiency and deflection of legal responsibility:

The Times analysis shows that . . . managers at many . . . nursing homes acquired by large private investors have cut expenses and staff, sometimes below minimum legal requirements. Regulators say residents at these homes have suffered. At facilities owned by private investment firms, residents on average have fared more poorly than occupants of other homes in common problems like depression, loss of mobility and loss of ability to dress and bathe themselves, according to data collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The typical nursing home acquired by a large investment company before 2006 scored worse than national rates in 12 of 14 indicators that regulators use to track ailments of long-term residents.

The law plays an important role in preventing accountability here; “private investment companies have made it very difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in court and for regulators to levy chainwide fines by creating complex corporate structures that obscure who controls their nursing homes.” So perhaps the key “innovation” here was the decision to aggressively reduce care and skillfully deploy legal strategies to prevent any liability for injuries that reduced care caused. It certainly worked well for investors; “A prominent nursing home industry analyst, Steve Monroe, estimates that [one investment group's] gains from [its sale of a nursing home chain] were more than $500 million in just four years.”

I have to confess that I’ve always wondered what business practices could “create the value” that’s resulted in such extraordinary gains at the top of the income scale. The Times has done us a great service by putting a human face on some of them. . . and on the legal strategies that make them possible.

Captured Product Safety Commission

nord.jpgAbout a year ago I heard a radio story about a new technology called SawStop, which is designed to prevent table saw injuries. Every year table saws cause “over 60,000 injuries, over 3,000 amputations, and $2 billion in injury-related costs.” SawStop petitioned the Consumer Products Safety Commission to issue new rules to encourage manufacturers to increase the safety of their saws. After years of lobbying, SawStop appeared to get the CPSC to agree…but then its chairman resigned:

[T]he CPSC staff recommended the petition be granted. On July 11, the commission voted, 2 to 1, to start the process of making a new rule, a job that can take years. [Sawstop's founder and attorney] said they felt vindicated, although the rejoicing ended four days later when Stratton resigned from the agency. One of the remaining commissioners, Nancy A. Nord[pictured at right], wanted to defer action on the petition and instead look at voluntary efforts being made by the industry. . . . Julie Vallese , CPSC spokeswoman, said the saw-safety standard idea isn’t dead but that the agency’s “decision-making procedures” don’t allow the rulemaking to advance with what amounts to a deadlocked commission.

I was surprised by that story, but apparently gridlock and apathy are par for the course at the agency. For example, it has protected ATV manufacturers from regulation, despite the fact that in 2004 “44,000 children riding all terrain vehicles were injured . . . nearly 150 of them fatally.” Here’s one insider’s account of that decision:

[At a hearing on the matter,] John Gibson Mullan, the agency’s director of compliance and a former lawyer for the A.T.V. industry . . . [said that the] current system of warning labels and other voluntary safety standards was working, he said. “We would need to be very careful about making any changes.” Robin L. Ingle, then the agency’s hazard statistician and A.T.V. injury expert, was dumbfounded. Her months of research did not support Mr. Mullan’s analysis. Yet she would not get to offer a rebuttal. “He had hijacked the presentation,” [she said].

A bit more commentary below the fold. . . .

Read More

0

Volokh on Blogs, Libel, and Insurance

Over at the VC, Eugene Volokh has a very thoughtful post about blogs, libel, and insurance. He notes: “It turns out that homeowner’s insurance policies, and possibly also some renter’s insurance policies, generally cover libel lawsuits.” The “policies generally don’t cover punitive damages, but they do cover both compensatory damages and litigation defense costs.” However, Volokh notes:

[T]hese policies generally explicitly exclude liability related to “business pursuits.” The exclusion and the definition of “business pursuits” may vary from policy to policy, so check yours (and again check both the homeowners’ insurance and your umbrella policy, if you have it). Still, I’m told that most policies just say “business pursuits,” and sometimes define them as referring to a “trade, occupation, or profession.”

If your blog is entirely noncommercial — you neither have ads nor solicit donations for a tip jar, and you don’t systematically use your blog as primarily promotion for your business — then you should be covered for libel lawsuits arising out of your blog posts, because the blogging wouldn’t be a business pursuit. (Possible exception: If your primary occupation is a professor or a journalist, then even noncommercial posting on topics related to your specialty may conceivably be seen as part of your main occupational “business pursuit”; I know of no precedents one way or the other about this.)

But if you make some money out of it, even a small amount, then in many states you probably won’t be covered.

Check out the entire post for useful advice on blogger liability issues.

2

More on Identifying the TB Patient

I blogged the other day about the inappropriate disclosure of the TB patient’s identity. Over at Chronicles of Dissent, Dissent has an interesting post worth reading about the issue. He quotes Dr. Martin Cetron, Director of Division of Global Migration and Quarantine at CDC, who said: “I don’t think, publicly naming the individual, which we never do, has any advantage in [faciliating contacting individuals at risk of contracting TB from exposure to the patient], since this is not a disease that’s spread by casual interactions with the public.” Dissent writes:

Certainly by now, the patient has been portrayed in a generally unflattering light in the media — as someone who was only concerned about his own needs and desires and who gave little thought to the health of others. Less media attention has been paid to his statements that he was never ordered not to fly, that at the time he left the country, he had not been diagnosed with the dangerous treatment-resistant strain, and that after they contacted him in Europe to inform him, he felt the CDC did not move quickly enough to make arrangements for his safe travel back to the U.S. for treatment — so he made his own arrangements.

Check out the full post for more about the issue.

4

Identifying the TB Patient

tb-patient2.jpgThe other day, I blogged about the TB patient who flew to Europe and back with the knowledge that he had a rare form of TB. The media had been reporting on the case for a while, and the man’s name was not identified until a day or two ago, when a number of stories began including his full name and photograph [one photo is included in this post; I have obscured his face], as well as the name and photographs of the woman he married (including photos from his wedding).

Although I find the man’s conduct to be irresponsible, I don’t think it was appropriate to identify him. I bet that revealing his name will result in threats and attempts at vigilantism, possibly putting him and his family at risk of harm. It will also severely hurt his reputation and perhaps even his career. Some might say that he deserves such consequences, but I believe that the most appropriate sanctions are legal, not extra-legal. I have blogged extensively about my thoughts about such community mob “justice” here.

Was it appropriate for the media to publish his name and photograph? The name and photograph of his wife? I am curious about how his name got leaked. If one of his physicians released it, or if a government official at the CDC or elsewhere released it, he might have a cause of action for breach of confidentiality or public disclosure of private facts.

UPDATE: Dissent (a commenter to my post) points to an AP story that provides an answer to how the man’s identity was revealed. According to the AP:

The tuberculosis patient under the first federal quarantine since 1963 is a 31-year-old personal injury attorney who practices law with his father in Atlanta, a federal law enforcement official said Thursday.

The official, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to talk about the case, identified the patient as [name]. A medical official in Atlanta also confirmed the patient’s name on condition of anonymity.

Barring facts I’m unaware of, such a disclosure by the government official seems improper and probably illegal. It might well be a violation of the TB patient’s constitutional right to information privacy. The confirmation of the patient’s identity by the medical offical in Atlanta would be a breach of confidentiality. It is surprising that these individuals disclosed the man’s name. They clearly knew better, as the federal official indicated he wasn’t supposed to speak about the case and the medical official requested anonymity. This strikes me as a willful disregard for the law, and I hope that these officials will be punished, let alone successfully sued by the TB patient.

12

Can the TB Patient Be Sued?

airplane3b.jpgI’ve been pondering whether the TB patient with the rare hard-to-treat form of the disease who flew on so many flights can be sued by those other passengers whom he may have exposed to the illness. From the New York Times:

The man with a dangerous and hard-to-treat form of tuberculosis, who potentially exposed several hundred airline passengers to the disease, was moved early today from a hospital in Atlanta to one in Denver that specializes in treating respiratory illnesses.

The man, described as a 31-year-old lawyer in Atlanta, was escorted by federal marshals as he walked under his own power from an ambulance to National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver. . . .

The man was the first to be placed in forced isolation in over 40 years by federal public health authorities after he traveled to Europe for a wedding and honeymoon after being advised that he had the disease. Health authorities said he posed a risk to airplane passengers, particularly on long, trans-Atlantic flights.

The man isn’t being charged with any crime, since there was no official order for him not to fly. However, he was strongly advised not to fly, but chose to fly to Europe to get married. He then flew on several flights around Europe. And finally, after being informed by the CDC that his TB was even more dangerous than he had thought, he flew back to the US so he could get better treatment:

The man, whose name has not been disclosed, has said he was advised not to travel, but not specifically forbidden. The wedding and honeymoon had apparently been planned for a long time. . . .

Meanwhile public health officials were trying to locate the passengers that sat closest to the man on the trans-Atlantic flights, who are said to be at the most risk for infection. They will be asked to undergo testing for presence of the disease. . . .

Officials of the federal Centers for Disease Control said they contacted the man while he was on vacation in Italy after they learned that he carried the dangerous strain of the disease and advised him to turn himself into Italian health authorities.

Instead, he made his way to Prague and flew from there to Montreal to avoid a United States no-fly list. He drove from there into this country until persuaded to go to a hospital in New York City.

I would think that the people who were near him on those flights would have a decent cause of action against him. If they test positive for the form of TB the man has, I assume he could be sued for negligently spreading a contagious disease. But I wonder how far such a theory might go. Could a person be sued for going to work with the flu and spreading it to others? And even if the passengers don’t test positive, the man’s actions have caused the passengers to suffer considerable fear and anxiety, as well as the time and expense of getting tested. I wonder whether this could give rise to a cause of action as well. Any tort law experts care to opine?

0

Self-Handicapping and Managers’ Duty of Care

I have recently posted my symposium essay Self-Handicapping and Managers’ Duty of Care on SSRN and Selected Works. You can read the abstract when you click through, so to convince you to download the essay, I’ll give you a taste of the introduction:

Authors commonly introduce their works in symposium issues with a few disclaiming words. They identify their scholarship as a “symposium essay,” not an “Article”; a “sketch” of an answer, not a fully-fleshed out argument. Casual readers might conclude that law professors are unusually humble and resist trumpeting the novelty and sophistication of their scholarship.

Social psychologists might instead believe that symposium authors seek to avoid reputational sanctions for publicizing arguments they have not fully dressed. Scholars try to signal an excuse for underdeveloped pieces: “I haven’t worked as hard on this paper as I would have if it were a ‘real’ article.” The goal of this excuse-making is simple: disappointed readers will attribute blame away from the author’s perceived acuity and professional reputation.

This is a symposium essay about the psychology of creating such pre-excuses for failure. Rather than focus on academics, I will examine the failings of overconfident corporate managers . . .

The piece grew out of a post I wrote here over a year ago, and will appear in the Wake Forest Law Review’s Business Law Symposium Issue.

The Value of Pets

basset.jpgPoison in pet food has led to new calls for rethinking law’s valuation of companion animals hurt or killed by torts:

Lawyers, animal-rights activists and pet owners are arguing that most state laws dealing with pets are outmoded and fail to consider that pets play the role of companions in today’s society. They say pet owners whose animal is injured or killed should receive compensation not only for vet bills and a replacement animal — but for emotional distress as well. While legal experts say big payouts for emotional damages are unlikely in the pet-food cases, the lawsuits and large number of pets affected could accelerate a growing trend to give pets more recognition under the law.

Quotes from devastated pet owners suggest their extraordinary attachment. For example, one claimed, of a cat, “She’s not a pet, she’s family. . . . She’s everything to me.” Another discussed the “significant emotional investment my wife and I have in our animals.”

I’ve worried a bit elsewhere about the growing importance of pets in today’s society. I think we may be trending toward an undue anthropomorphism, a tendency to “attribut[e] human characteristics, behavior or emotions to our non-human friends”–and value them accordingly.

I recognize that the capacity to be a good steward for animals and the environment generally is a great virtue. Still, I think this may be a good place to apply recent literature on resilient humans’ capacity for “bouncing back” after “utility shocks.” A person who suffers from the loss of a pet in the same way that others suffer from the loss of a child is certainly due great sympathy. But calibrating legal treatment of such losses to the subjective response of individuals confers society’s imprimatur upon a deep confusion about the relative value of human and nonhuman animals. . . . and may well lead us down a slippery slope toward a recognition of machine rights.

Photo Credit: AGrimley/Flickr.