KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District has reversing a lower court’s dismissal of most of a woman’s claims against Truman Medical Center, stemming from an alleged privacy breach and workplace harassment related to her COVID-19 vaccination status.
The appellate court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the majority of Rose Howland’s lawsuit for lack of standing, allowing her case to proceed on multiple grounds including breach of confidentiality and negligence, according to a July 1 opinion.
Howland filed the lawsuit in September 2022, alleging that while she was both an employee and a patient at Truman Medical, co-workers improperly accessed her confidential patient records.
According to her claims, the records revealed she was unvaccinated against COVID-19, information which was then shared among employees.
Howland alleged this disclosure led to harassment, ridicule and ostracization in the workplace, ultimately causing her to resign due to what she described as an “untenable” work environment.
In her second amended petition, Howland asserted six causes of action against Truman Medical, including breach of fiduciary duty of confidentiality, breach of implied contract, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, negligence, negligent training and supervision and negligence per se based on alleged violations of federal statutes HIPAA and HITECH.
Truman Medical moved to dismiss the suit, claiming Howland lacked standing and failed to state valid legal claims.
The Jackson County Circuit Court, presided over by Judge Joel P. Fahnestock, granted the motion in part, dismissing all claims except for the MMPA count. Howland later voluntarily dismissed the MMPA claim, and a final judgment was entered, prompting the appeal.
On review, the Court of Appeals concluded that Howland had sufficiently alleged concrete and particularized harm resulting from the unauthorized disclosure of her private medical information.
The appellate judges found that her allegations of emotional distress, humiliation, workplace demotion and eventual resignation were not merely speculative or hypothetical, as the trial court had determined, but demonstrated actual injury.
Judge Edward R. Ardini Jr., writing for the court, stated that Howland’s claims met the legal threshold for standing because she presented a justiciable controversy—meaning she had a legally protectable interest and had suffered real harm.
The court noted that under Missouri law, standing does not require plaintiffs to provide evidentiary support at the pleading stage; rather, allegations are accepted as true when reviewing a motion to dismiss.
The court found Howland’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty of confidentiality and breach of implied contract were adequately pleaded.
The panel determined that Howland had asserted that she was a patient of Truman Medical and that her patient records — specifically regarding her vaccination status — were accessed without authorization. This supported her claim that a fiduciary relationship existed and that it had been breached.
The court also upheld Howland’s claims for negligence and negligent supervision, rejecting Truman Medical’s argument that the economic loss doctrine should bar these claims. While the doctrine limits recovery in tort for purely contractual economic losses, the court found that Howland had alleged non-economic injuries, including emotional suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, which are not barred.
However, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s decision to dismiss Howland’s negligence per se claim. That claim was based on alleged violations of HIPAA and HITECH — federal statutes that do not provide a private right of action. Because Missouri law requires a statute to allow a private right of action in order to support a negligence per se claim, the court affirmed the dismissal of that particular count.
As a result of the appellate decision, Howland’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, negligence, and negligent training and supervision have been reinstated and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
All three judges on the appellate panel — Presiding Judge Edward R. Ardini Jr., Judge Alok Ahuja and Judge Thomas N. Chapman — concurred in the opinion.
Missouri Court of Appeals Western District case number: WD87521
