ent from disclosures in court of potentially embarrassing private details." McCormick said that "the whole supposition of the patient-privilege legislation, that the patient's fear of revelation in court of the information he gives to the doctor is highly speculative."
State courts have used various rationales for imposing civil liability on doctors for breaching the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship. Some relied on a contractual theory --i.e. "the doctor warrants that any confidential information gained through the relationship will not be released without the patient's permission." Others based liability on a breach of a fiduciary relationship. See Ritter v. Rush Presbyterian-St.Luke's Medical Ctr., 532 N.E.2d 327, 331 (Ill. 1988).
A similar basis for liability is the breach of confidentiality tort. In Humphers v. First Interstate Bank, 298 Or. 706, 696 N.W.2d 134 (1974), a physician to the natural mother was held liable for disclosing the mother's identity to her adopted daughter. Brandeis & Warren point out that a long line of 19t
...