People v. Home Insurance Co. case brief summary
591 P.2d 1036 (1979)
CASE FACTS
Defendant insurance company was charged with violation of a theft statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-401(1)(a) (1973), as the result of defendant's hiring of an investigative service which surreptitiously procured confidential medical information concerning two hospital patients. The prosecution argued that the confidentiality inherent in one's personal medical information was a "thing of value" within the meaning of the theft statute because confidentiality was intangible personal property. The trial court granted dismissal of the charges. The prosecution appealed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the dismissal of theft charges filed against defendant insurance company for hiring investigators to surreptitiously obtain patients' hospital records. The court held that while defendant's conduct was reprehensible, the legislature had not imposed criminal penalties for violations of the confidentiality of medical information.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
591 P.2d 1036 (1979)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The prosecution appealed from a
judgment of the District Court of the City and County of Denver
(Colorado) that dismissed theft-related charges filed against
defendant insurance company as the result of the surreptitious
procurement by defendant's agents of confidential medical information
concerning two patients of a Denver hospital.CASE FACTS
Defendant insurance company was charged with violation of a theft statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-401(1)(a) (1973), as the result of defendant's hiring of an investigative service which surreptitiously procured confidential medical information concerning two hospital patients. The prosecution argued that the confidentiality inherent in one's personal medical information was a "thing of value" within the meaning of the theft statute because confidentiality was intangible personal property. The trial court granted dismissal of the charges. The prosecution appealed.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the charges.
- The court held that confidentiality had never been considered to be intangible personal property, which had been held to be property that was merely representative of value, such as certificates of stock, bonds, or notes.
- The court held that where the legislature had not chosen to apply criminal sanctions to the invasion of the confidentiality of medical information, the court would not do so by an unwarranted interpretation of the meaning of intangible personal property as it was used in the statutory definition of "thing of value."
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the dismissal of theft charges filed against defendant insurance company for hiring investigators to surreptitiously obtain patients' hospital records. The court held that while defendant's conduct was reprehensible, the legislature had not imposed criminal penalties for violations of the confidentiality of medical information.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment