Baker, S.J.
Statement of the Case [Footnote omitted.]
Amanda Henry (Henry) appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Community Healthcare System Community Hospital (Community) on her complaint alleging general negligence, but more specifically pursuing claims of invasion of privacy by intrusion into emotional seclusion, invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts (PDPF), and negligent retention. We hold the court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Community on Henry’s negligent retention claim. The remaining issues Henry raises on appeal highlight the mixed signals the bench and bar have received from our appellate courts regarding Indiana’s recognition (or not) of the sub-torts of invasion of privacy by intrusion on emotional seclusion and PDPF. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that the court navigated the caselaw appropriately here; therefore, we must affirm in all respects.
Issues
Henry presents the following restated issues for our review:
I. Does Indiana recognize the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion on emotional seclusion, and if so, did the court err by granting summary judgment in favor of Community?
II. Does Indiana recognize the tort of invasion of privacy by PDPF, and if so, did the court err by granting summary judgment in favor of Community?
III. Did the court err by finding that Community’s employee’s disciplinary record did not put Community on notice such that it is liable for negligent retention?
IV. Does Henry’s claim fail because there is no evidence of damages?
….
The Trial Court’s Ruling
Here, the trial court found that: (1) “Henry’s claims for invasion of privacy by means of intrusion upon emotional seclusion and public disclosure of private facts are not recognized in Indiana;” (2) “there is no provision for recovery for emotional damages without satisfying the modified impact rule, which Henry, on the facts set forth above, does not satisfy;” and (3) “Any negligent retention claim fails because the designated materials reveal nothing in the spouse’s background that would raise a red flag or prevent him from being hired . . . there is nothing in the spouse’s employment disciplinary record, consisting mainly of parking violations and tardiness, that would suggest that he had a disciplinary history of conduct dangerous to others or would disclose confidential patient information.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 19-20.
….
Henry’s claims here are ones for emotional injuries related to her intrusion claim, which are not recognized in Indiana appellate decisions involving invasion of privacy by intrusion into emotional seclusion or solace. We acknowledge that certain health information is meant to remain private and that there are laws protecting against the disclosure of same, most notably the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Henry makes a good argument as to why intrusion into emotional solace in general should be recognized, especially in terms of medical breaches. Yet, in her particular case, we cannot grant her the relief she seeks. Invasion of privacy by intrusion into emotional seclusion or solace is not recognized. The court did not err.
….
Assuming, as we must, that PDPF is not yet recognized in Indiana, we affirm the court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Community on this issue and invite our Supreme Court to do as Chief Justice Rush and Justice Goff argued and “dispel any confusion surrounding the sub-tort.” Id.
….
We note at the outset that “independent stand-alone actions for negligent infliction of emotional distress are not cognizable in Indiana.” See Spangler v. Bechtel, 958 N.E.2d 458, 466 (Ind. 2011). Because we conclude that Indiana does not recognize (1) invasion of privacy by intrusion into emotional seclusion or solace, or (2) PDPF, Henry’s claim for emotional damages cannot survive. Consequently, we need not address the parties’ arguments about the applicability of the modified impact rule here.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the trial court in all respects.
Affirmed. Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur