Opinion
No. 3-032 / 02-0869.
Filed April 30, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, KEITH E. BURGETT, Judge.
Eickemeyer appeals from the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMED.
Matthew Oetker, Alfredo Parrish and Jane White of Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn, Boles Gribble, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
Charles S. Lavorato, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Heard by HUITINK, P.J., and HECHT, J., and BROWN, S.J.
Senior Judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2003).
Eickemeyer appeals from the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 135C, Jay Dee Eickemeyer filed several complaints against Home Sweet Home, Inc. with the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA). The DIA assigned Barbara Theide to investigate the charges. During the course of the investigation, Eickemeyer's identity as the complainant was disclosed to Home Sweet Home.
Eickemeyer subsequently filed a petition at law against the State of Iowa, alleging a breach of confidentiality in violation of section 135C.37 (2001) and a common law negligence claim based upon breach of confidentiality. The State filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting section 135C.37 does not provide for a private cause of action for a breach of confidentiality and Iowa does not recognize a common law negligence action for breach of confidentiality. The district court granted the State's motion on May 17, 2002.
Eickemeyer appeals, contending the district court erred in granting the summary judgment because section 135C.37 does provide a private cause of action.
II. Standard of Review. We review the grant of a summary judgment for correction of errors at law. McComas-Lacina Const. Co. v. Able Constructors, 641 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Iowa 2002). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R.Civ.P. 1.981(3).
III. Discussion. Iowa Code section 135C.37 provides, in relevant part:
The name of the person who files a complaint with the department . . . shall be kept confidential and shall not be subject to discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion for its release to a person other than the department employees involved in the investigation of the complaint.
Section 135C.37 does not explicitly provide a private cause of action for a breach of confidentiality. Thus, we must determine whether the legislature implicitly created a cause of action. When determining whether a statute implies a private cause of action, we apply a four-part test:
(1) Is the plaintiff a member of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted?
(2) Is there any indication of legislative intent, explicitly or implicitly, to either create or deny such a remedy?
(3) Would allowing such a cause of action be consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislation?
(4) Would the private cause of action intrude into an area over which the federal government or a state administrative agency holds exclusive jurisdiction?Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285, 288 (Iowa 1995). The State acknowledges that the fighting issue in this appeal is whether the second and third elements are satisfied. We will, then, limit our analysis to determining whether section 135C.37 contains any indication of legislative intent to create or deny a private cause of action and whether such a cause of action would be consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute.
Although we find merit in Eickemeyer's argument that a private cause of action for a breach of confidentiality would be consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute, we find no indication of legislative intent to create such a remedy for breach of the duty to keep the identity of complainants confidential. Chapter 135C creates a comprehensive scheme for the licensure and regulation of health care facilities providing housing for the aged, infirm, convalescent, and the mentally or physically dependent. The statute is replete with remedies and penalties which may be levied against health care facilities that fall below statutory and regulatory standards or retaliate against residents who complain about the conditions of the facility. See Iowa Code §§ 135C.10-.13, .20A, .21, .36, .38, .40, .44, and .46. Notably, none of the remedies authorized in the chapter is expressly made available through a private cause of action against either health care facilities or the DIA. In addition, no remedy,
The legislature expressly noted its purpose "to promote and encourage adequate and safe care and housing for individuals who are aged or who, regardless of age, are infirm, convalescent, or mentally or physically dependent, by both public and private agencies by providing for the adoption and enforcement of rules and standards. . . ." Iowa Code § 135C.2(1). It seems plausible that the legislature believed (1) the interests of vulnerable residents will be protected if persons with knowledge of substandard care or unsafe housing make complaints; (2) persons with such knowledge will more likely make such complaints if their identity is kept confidential; and (3) persons having a duty to keep the identity of complainants confidential will be more assiduous in the performance of their duty if held accountable in damages for breach thereof.
In fact, all of the remedies provided by the statute are enforceable only against the health care facilities themselves, not the DIA.
administrative or otherwise, is provided in the statute for a breach of confidentiality by the health care facilities. We rely on the statutory construction rule of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" and conclude that by not providing a remedy for a breach of confidentiality, the legislature has signaled its intention not to provide a private cause of action for a violation of section 135C.37. See Meinders v. Dunkerton Cmty. Sch. Dist., 645 N.W.2d 632, 637 (Iowa 2002); Sanford v. Manternach, 601 N.W.2d 360, 371 (Iowa 1999); Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285, 289-90 (Iowa 1995).
Our conclusion that section 135C.37 does not through its silence on the subject of remedy imply the creation of a cause of action for breach of confidentiality is also supported by the fact that the legislature has demonstrated the capacity to expressly create private causes of action for breach of statutory duty when it so intends. See Iowa Code § 235A.20 (establishing cause of action for breach of confidentiality of child abuse information); see also Iowa Code § 70A.29 (creating civil action against state or its political subdivisions for reprisal following disclosure of information). We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State.