Can ambiguous medical consent forms prevent summary judgment on privacy claims? Judge v. Saltz Plastic Surgery Explained

In Judge v. Saltz Plastic Surgery, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether factual disputes surrounding medical consent forms can preclude summary judgment on privacy-related tort claims. The case demonstrates how ambiguous contract language and contextual factors can create genuine issues of material fact even when defendants assert patient consent as a defense.

Background and Facts

Dr. Saltz performed cosmetic surgery on plaintiff Judge, who signed consent forms allowing photography “for medical, scientific or educational purposes, provided my identity is not revealed by the pictures.” When a television reporter requested patient photographs for a news story about cosmetic surgery, Dr. Saltz’s office manager provided Judge’s before-and-after photos along with emails identifying them as “Coni’s before pictures” and “Coni’s after pictures.” The news organization broadcast the redacted photographs while identifying Judge by name. Judge sued for false light, publication of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent employment and supervision.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether consent forms created genuine factual disputes regarding: (1) whether consent extended to disclosure to third parties; (2) what constituted “educational purposes”; (3) whether identity protection requirements were violated; and (4) whether previously public exposure eliminated privacy expectations for medical photographs taken in private settings.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed all summary judgment rulings, finding multiple factual disputes. The consent form’s failure to explicitly mention third-party disclosure created ambiguity about its scope. The court distinguished between appearances in public settings versus private medical contexts, rejecting the trial court’s reasoning that prior bikini-wearing eliminated all privacy expectations. Regarding publication of private facts, the court held that providing photographs to reporters creates factual questions about substantial certainty of public disclosure. The court also found genuine disputes about whether the public had legitimate interest in explicit photographic documentation of surgical results.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that privacy tort defendants cannot rely solely on boilerplate consent language to obtain summary judgment. Courts will examine the specific context of disclosures and may find ambiguities where consent forms don’t explicitly address third-party sharing. The ruling also clarifies that prior public exposure doesn’t automatically negate privacy expectations in different contexts, particularly when private medical information is involved. For practitioners, the case highlights the importance of detailed factual development and careful contract interpretation arguments when defending or challenging privacy-related claims.