Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Moses v. McWilliams

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 28, 1988No. 2062 and 2063Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CIRILLO, President Judge,

concurring and dissenting:

Because I disagree with the majority’s resolution of the issues involved in this case, I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part. I agree with the majority’s disposition of the defamation claim before us. I believe, however, that some cause of action should exist in this Commonwealth for a physician’s breach of the duty of confidentiality to a patient. Because the majority finds that Moses is precluded from stating a claim for breach by her underlying medical malpractice action, it fails to reach this issue. I would hold that such a…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1986
  3. Pelagatti v. CohenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. Buczek v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API