The Missouri Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a Kansas City firefighter who alleged that members of the Kansas City Fire Department (KCFD) improperly disclosed his confidential medical and mental health information. The case arose out of a 2017 EMS transport in which the plaintiff, Joseph Weixeldorfer, was taken to the hospital for treatment. He claimed that afterward, City employees disseminated details of his medical condition to others both within and outside the fire department, including to his father.
Weixeldorfer’s original petition was filed in 2021, but over the course of nearly three years, he sought to amend it five times. His claims included breach of confidentiality, breach of implied contract, violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, negligence, negligent supervision, and negligence per se. He argued that the City’s sovereign immunity did not apply either because it had obtained insurance coverage or because its handling of HIPAA-related matters constituted a proprietary rather than governmental function.
The City successfully moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including sovereign immunity and the statute of limitations. Weixeldorfer appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in denying him leave to file a Fifth Amended Petition that sought to add new defendants, reframe legal theories, and assert a breach of contract claim based on a HIPAA acknowledgment form.
The appellate court rejected each of Weixeldorfer’s arguments:
- Addition of New Defendants Barred by Limitations: The court ruled that the attempt to substitute individual EMS personnel and a City privacy officer as named defendants came too late. Although the plaintiff had earlier used placeholders (e.g., John Doe 1), the court found that he failed to meet the requirements for relation back under Missouri’s Rule 55.33(c). Importantly, the City’s knowledge of the suit could not be imputed to its employees.
- Sovereign Immunity Argument Untimely: The court emphasized that Weixeldorfer could not raise a new legal theory—namely, that the City was acting in a proprietary capacity—after years of litigation and shortly before trial. Since the operative complaint at the time of summary judgment did not contain this argument, the trial court was correct to disregard it.
- HIPAA Acknowledgment Not a Contract: The court also rejected the idea that the HIPAA acknowledgment form signed by Weixeldorfer created a binding contract. It was merely a notice of federal privacy obligations, and under Missouri law, a promise to do what one is already legally required to do cannot form the basis of a contract.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying further amendments and that summary judgment in favor of the City was proper.
This case underscores the difficulties public employees face in overcoming sovereign immunity protections when suing municipalities, particularly when their claims are grounded in privacy violations stemming from internal disclosures. It also highlights the procedural importance of timely identifying individual defendants and properly pleading exceptions to immunity early in the litigation process.
Here is a copy of the decision:
