Anne P. Mulligan v. Galen Hospital Alaska Inc. d/b/a Alaska Regional Hospital

NOTICE

Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. A party wishing to cite such a decision in a brief or at oral argument should review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d).

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

ANNE P. MULLIGAN, ) ) Supreme Court No. S-18089 Appellant, ) ) Superior Court No. 3AN-19-07393 CI v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION GALEN HOSPITAL ALASKA INC., ) AND JUDGMENT* d/b/a ALASKA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ) ) No. 1941 – December 28, 2022 Appellee. ) )

Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Jennifer H. Henderson, Judge.

Appearances: Anne P. Mulligan, pro se, Anchorage, Appellant. Chester D. Gilmore and Selena R. Hopkins- Kendall, Cashion Gilmore & Lindemuth, Anchorage, for Appellee.

Before: Winfree, Chief Justice, Maassen and Borghesan, Justices. [Carney and Henderson, Justices, not participating.]

I. INTRODUCTION

A hospital reported a woman to law enforcement after receiving threatening calls from her phone number. The woman sued the hospital, alleging that it illegally accessed her medical records in order to find her phone number, invaded her privacy by recording her on security cameras, and defamed her by reporting her to the police. The superior court granted summary judgment for the hospital, and the woman appeals. We see no error and affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

Anne Mulligan was seen at Alaska Regional Hospital on July 10, 2018. The next day hospital security personnel reported to the Anchorage Police Department (APD) that the hospital had received two harassing calls from Mulligan’s phone number. Alaska Regional received two more calls from Mulligan’s phone number on July 12; on the second call the caller threatened to blow up the hospital building. Alaska Regional again contacted APD, and Mulligan was charged with attempted terroristic threatening in the second degree.1

Mulligan filed suit against Alaska Regional, and the court ultimately construed her complaint as containing three claims: (1) violation of HIPAA2 by unlawfully accessing her medical records to find her phone number; (2) violation of her right to privacy by capturing images of her on hospital security cameras; and (3) defamation based on the hospital’s reports to APD.3

Alaska Regional moved for summary judgment, providing as support the affidavit of its Director of Patient Safety and Risk Management and a variety of supporting documents, including a timeline of relevant events and Mulligan’s subpoenaed phone records. The court granted summary judgment to the hospital on all three of Mulligan’s claims. Mulligan appeals.

III. DISCUSSION

“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo and will affirm the judgment if there are no contested issues of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”4 “We apply a more lenient standard to pro se litigants.”5 But to avoid waiver, “a pro se litigant’s briefing must allow his or her opponent and this court to discern the pro se’s legal argument. Even a pro se litigant . . . must cite authority and provide a legal theory.”6 Even under our “more lenient standard,” Mulligan’s brief provides no reason for us to reverse the superior court’s grant of summary judgment on any of her three claims. First, “HIPAA regulations do not confer a private right of action on an individual.”7 The superior court properly granted summary judgment to Alaska Regional on Mulligan’s HIPAA claim.8

Second, the superior court granted summary judgment on Mulligan’s privacy right claim because of her written consent, as a patient, to “the hospital’s right to use security cameras” and to “photographs, video, digital or audio recordings, and/or images of [her] being recorded for . . . security purposes.” Mulligan does not dispute that she gave this consent or that it is dispositive.9

Third, the superior court identified a number of fatal deficiencies in Mulligan’s defamation claim. One essential element requires proof of an unprivileged publication to a third party.10 In concluding that Mulligan’s claim failed to satisfy this element, the superior court cited common law privileges applicable to the institution of judicial proceedings.11 Mulligan does not address the superior court’s privilege analysis in her brief and has therefore waived the issue on appeal.12 IV. CONCLUSION

The superior court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.13