Mathias, J.
Franciscan Alliance, Inc. (“Franciscan”) filed a motion for summary judgment on the issues of respondeat superior and negligent hiring and retention of an employee on April 5, 2018. Marion Superior Court granted summary judgment for Franciscan on July 6, 2018. Leslie Hayden (“Hayden”) now appeals, arguing there are issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. We affirm.
….
Hayden first claims that Franciscan is liable for Collins’s actions under respondeat superior. Appellant’s Br. at 23. An employer is liable for an employee’s tortious acts under respondeat superior only if those acts occurred within the scope of employment. Cox v. Evansville Police Department, 107 N.E.3d 453, 460 (Ind. 2018). An employee acts within the scope of employment when an act furthers the employer’s business to an appreciable extent or is incidental to authorized conduct. Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99, 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). An act is incidental to authorized conduct when it is “subordinate to or pertinent to an act which the [employee] is employed to perform[.]” Id. (quoting Bushong v. Williamson, 790 N.E.2d 467, 473 (Ind. 2003)).
….
Hayden’s case is more akin to Doe and Robbins rather than to Hinchy. Although Collins was authorized to use Franciscan’s computer to look up patient records, she was not authorized to do so for personal reasons. As in Robbins, where the confidentiality agreement expressly prohibited the nurse form accessing and/or disclosing patient records for personal reasons, Collins signed an agreement at the onset of her employment that stated she could only “use and access information that is needed to perform [her] job duties, and inappropriate use or disclosure of information on [her] part may result in legal action, including personal liability.” Appellant’s Confidential App. Vol. II, p. 81. There is no evidence that the pharmacist in Hinchy signed a confidentiality agreement.
Collins accessed Hayden’s records eleven days after Hayden’s visit to the Radiology Department. Hayden was not a patient of Franciscan on November 28 or 29, 2013. Collins thus had no legitimate business need to access Hayden’s medical records on November 29, 2013 because Collins did not need to look her up for an appointment or to prepare patient records for November 29, 2013. Collins’s access to the medical records was expressly not authorized; the information was not needed to perform her job duties and thus was not sanctioned. In addition, Hayden’s comparison to Hinchy is ultimately untenable because there is no evidence that the pharmacist in Hinchy signed a confidentiality agreement like the nurse in Robbins or Collins. [Footnote omitted.]
….
The trial court properly granted summary judgment to Franciscan on the issue of respondeat superior. Franciscan established that Collins accessed the medical records for non-employment-related reasons, in direct violation of the confidentiality agreement she signed at the onset of her employment with Franciscan. Hayden failed to designate any evidence to the contrary. For these reasons, Franciscan is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
I. Negligence
Hayden claims that Franciscan is liable for negligently hiring and retaining, training, and monitoring and supervising Collins. Negligence claims have three elements: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty and (3) injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the defendant’s breach. Scott v. Retz, 916 N.E.2d 252, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
….
Franciscan designated evidence establishing that Franciscan did not negligently hire and retain Collins. Hayden failed to designate evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate on the issue of negligent hiring and retention.
….
Hayden failed to designate any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of negligent training. Summary judgment was therefore properly granted to Franciscan on this issue.
….
Finally, Hayden argues that Franciscan failed to meet its burden to prove that Collins was properly monitored and supervised. In support of her argument, Hayden relies on the affidavit of Rhodes, Franciscan’s Director of Patient Access.
….
Hayden also argues that Rhodes’s testimony does not establish that Franciscan properly supervised and managed employees because she could not specifically testify whether supervisors had been making rounds on November 29, 2013. This is an inaccurate characterization of Rhodes’s testimony. Rhodes testified that Collins was not supervised differently than any other registrar at Franciscan, and she was properly supervised based on Franciscan’s standards. Id. at 112. Rhodes clarified that the registrar’s role is “very independent. There’s not a reason for somebody to stand over them all the time unless they ask for assistance or they need support with something[.]” Id. at 91. Rhodes’s affidavit and testimony are not deficient.
Conclusion
Hayden failed to establish any genuine issue of material fact. The trial court appropriately granted summary judgment to Franciscan on the issues of respondeat superior and negligence. Affirmed. May, J., and Brown, J., concur.