ST. PAUL - A Willmar, Minnesota, pharmacist who inadvertently provided information about a man's Viagra prescription to his estranged wife did not legally invade his privacy, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

The man and his current wife originally filed a civil lawsuit in Nov. 2014 in Kandiyohi County District Court against the pharmacist and her employer, Kmart Corporation, alleging the pharmacist had publicized private facts and the company had negligently trained the pharmacist.

The lawsuit was filed under Jane Doe and John Doe monikers for the plaintiffs for privacy reasons. They requested over $50,000 in damages, alleging the humiliation that resulted from the disclosure led to emotional distress.

The complaint stemmed from one phone call back in 2011. John Doe's ex-wife was a pharmacist in a different town. When she allegedly called the Willmar pharmacist at the Willmar Kmart store seeking John Doe's prescription information, the pharmacist provided it, even though John Doe had reportedly specially requested that his information not be disseminated.

In court documents, John Doe had stated he was ridiculed by his ex-wife on social media for the prescription, and maintained that he received a less significant divorce settlement because the discovery of the exact amount of the medication inferred infidelity.

WDAY logo
listen live
watch live

Viagra is a prescription medication used to treat erectile dysfunction.

Instead, Kandiyohi County District Court Judge Jennifer Fischer ruled in favor of the pharmacy and pharmacist, awarding summary judgement and dismissing all claims.

Jane and John Doe appealed that decision.

On Monday, the Appeals Court once again sided with the pharmacist and Kmart. Even though the information shared was very private, Appeals Judge Diane Bratvold wrote, it was only shared to one person, not the "public at large" under court definition.

"Because the Does' evidence established that respondents disclosed private facts to only one individual, the Does have not satisfied the "publicity" element of this privacy tort," Bratvold wrote in the court's unpublished opinion, filed Monday.

Jane and John Doe argued for a new court standard in Minnesota: the "particular public," under which disclosure to a smaller, more specific amount of people "whose knowledge of facts those would be embarrassing to the plaintiff" would count as publicity.

The standard is recognized in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa. But it was already rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1998, according to the Appeals Court opinion.

Bratvold wrote that the Minnesota Court of Appeals cannot overrule that decision by the higher-level Supreme Court.

The couple had also argued that they suffered emotional and physical distress from the negligence of the pharmacy and pharmacist, describing Temporomandibular Joint Disorder, headaches and sleep problems.

Their evidence for those claims was a prescription for sleep medication, a letter from a chiropractor and a pharmacist's affidavit.

But the affidavit and letter did not describe any specific facts about Jane Doe, indicating the pharmacist and chiropractor had no personal knowledge of her, the judge wrote. In addition, loss of sleep is not a qualifying claim for emotional distress under Minnesota legal standard, she said.

"The only remaining evidence of Jane Doe's TMJ is her own testimony," Bratvold wrote, "which is not sufficient to establish that her TMJ is a physical manifestation of emotional distress."

Further, she wrote, emotional distress and damage of reputation don't alone qualify for breach of contract damages. The pharmacy would have had to intentionally inflicted emotional distress. That was not proven, Bratvold wrote.

With the Monday ruling, the Court of Appeals upheld the prior ruling in Kandiyohi County District Court.