Hofer v. OHSU

Absolute privilege, a complete bar to liability for defamation, generally applies in governmental settings to statements made by public officials in the course of their public duties. Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C, 313 Or App 599, 604-05 (2021); Johnson v. Brown, 193 Or App 375, 380 (2004). To recover damages from one’s physician for emotional harm absent a physical injury, the physician’s standard of care must include a “specific duty to be aware of and guard against particular adverse psychological reactions or consequences to medical procedures.” Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 327 Or 9, 14-15 (1998).

Hofer sued Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) after two physicians typed false statements into her medical record. The trial court granted OHSU’s motions for summary judgment on Hofer’s defamation claims, reasoning they were barred by absolute privilege, and on her medical negligence claim because there were “insufficient facts to prove a basis.” Hofer assigns error to the trial court’s grant of OHSU’s summary judgment motions. Absolute privilege, a complete bar to liability for defamation, generally applies in governmental settings to statements made by public officials in the course of their public duties. Lowell v. Medford School Dist. 549C, 313 Or App 599, 604-05 (2021); Johnson v. Brown, 193 Or App 375, 380 (2004). To recover damages from one’s physician for emotional harm absent a physical injury, the physician’s standard of care must include a “specific duty to be aware of and guard against particular adverse psychological reactions or consequences to medical procedures.” Curtis v. MRI Imaging Services II, 327 Or 9, 14-15 (1998). OHSU qualifies for absolute privilege because the employees were acting in their roles as resident physicians and attending physicians for a public corporation established by the legislature to act as a government entity. The Court, in agreement with the trial court, concluded that Hofer failed to demonstrate how the right to privacy regarding one’s medical records and the corresponding rights of access and correction gave rise to liability in negligence for emotional harm. Affirmed.