Alberts v. Devine

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that one may be held liable for inducing physician to violate duty of confidentiality to patient
• holding that a duty of confidentiality arises from the psychiatrist-patient relationship “and that a violation of that duty, resulting in damages, gives rise to a cause of action sounding in tort against the physician”
• stating that merely “a violation of [the duty of confidentiality] gives rise to a cause of action sounding in tort”
• noting self-evident benefits, including creating environment most favorable for treatment and recovery of patient, of fostering confidentiality between medical provider and patient
• declining to determine whether a common law cause of action for invasion of privacy exists in Massachusetts
• establishing common law rule that physician owes duty of nondisclosure of confidential information concerning patient, “unless faced with a serious danger to the patient or to others”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).