Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Utah Supreme Court Affirms Physician’s Intrusion into Seclusion Claim Against TV Station

The Utah Supreme Court has affirmed a jury verdict for a physician who claimed intrusion into seclusion against a reporter who used a hidden camera to tape a conversation with him while she claimed to be consulting him as a patient. In Jensen v. Sawyers, the physician (Jensen) claimed that the reporter (Sawyers) had committed “fraud and misrepresentation, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, negligent misrepresentation, defamation of character, and negligence” as a result of her station’s broadcast of her interview with and investigation of him.

The story began when an executive producer for the station met Dr. Jensen at a party and heard him prescribe diet pills for another guest who was not Jensen’s patient. Upon reflection, he thought this odd and asked the medical issues reporters for the station, Mary Sawyers, to investigate. They, along with another station employee, agreed that Sawyers would “pose as a patient and visit Dr. Jensen. She would record her visit with a hidden camera. The three believed that this plan provided the best way to obtain candid information from Dr. Jensen about his weight loss treatment practices….During the appointment, Dr. Jensen did not obtain a complete medical history of Ms. Sawyers. He did not conduct a physical examination. He did not ask her if she was then taking any medication. Dr. Jensen’s nurse took Ms. Sawyers’ vital signs and asked if she was allergic to any medicines. Ms. Sawyers was not overweight or obese, and she was not weighed by Dr. Jensen or his staff.”

Sawyers also met with “David Robinson, the director of

Utah

‘s Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (“DOPL”). Ms. Sawyers showed Mr. Robinson the video tape of her appointment with Dr. Jensen. After viewing the tape, Mr. Robinson expressed his concerns about Dr. Jensen’s interactions with Ms. Sawyers, stating that `I think when you look at the intent of the physician, it’s clear that he knows that he is violating the law and is offering excuses for it. And I think he is doing so with potential jeopardy to his patients. . . . I’m very concerned about it.'”