Doe v. Hall

The trial court retained discretion under O.C.G.A. § 24-9-47 y 2, to allow the plaintiff to proceed with his wrongful disclosure of HIV status case under a pseudonym.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this interlocutory appeal, “John Doe,” the appellant, appeals the trial court’s ruling that he was precluded from proceeding under a pseudonym. By motion, appellant sought to maintain his confidentiality in this action involving the allegedly improper disclosure of HIV confidential information. The trial court held that OCGA § 24-9-47 y 2 required appellant to bring suit in his own name. Because the trial court retains discretion to determine whether appellant may proceed under a pseudonym, we vacate the judgment and remand the case with direction. We do not address the appropriateness of plaintiff’s specific requests for limitations in connection with his request to prosecute this case under a pseudonym. As an initial matter, we must emphasize that this opinion considers only the trial court’s ruling that OCGA § 24-9-47 y 2 requires appellant to bring this action in his own name, thereby removing any discretion the trial court might have to allow the use of a pseudonym. As the viability and merits of this case have not yet been reached by the trial court, such issues are not before us, and nothing in this opinion should be construed as a ruling thereon.

The record shows that appellant filed a complaint against David L. Hall, M. D., North Fulton Family Medicine, P. C., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., and Laboratory Corporations of America. In his complaint, appellant alleged that Dr. Hall obtained body fluids from him to determine his HIV status. Appellant further alleged that Dr. Hall failed to submit the body fluids in an anonymous fashion for testing, and Dr. Hall and the other defendants were negligent in failing to maintain the anonymity and confidentiality of appellant’s medical records. As a result of this alleged negligence, appellant complains that his HIV confidential information was improperly divulged and, as a result, he “lost his job and has suffered great damages.” In addition, appellant filed medical malpractice claims against both Dr. Hall and North Fulton Family Medicine.

Doe v. Hall

The trial court retained discretion under O.C.G.A. § 24-9-47 y 2, to allow the plaintiff to proceed with his wrongful disclosure of HIV status case under a pseudonym.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report