This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
A woman did or did not consent to being identified in photographs showing her successful breast augmentation surgery in a television news story, the Utah Supreme Court was told by opposing parties on Tuesday.
Justices took up the case of Conilyn Judge who sued her plastic surgeon after his office released photographs of her naked torso to a Fox 13 news reporter for a story on the pitfalls of cosmetic surgery and how to avoid them by selecting a good surgeon.
Judge sued Dr. Renato Saltz and Saltz Plastic Surgery in 2009, claiming he had violated her privacy by identifying her as one of the people whose photographs were provided to a Fox reporter, who then broadcast two redacted photos and identified her on air.
The court took up questions of whether Judge had actually consented to the disclosure by willingly participating in the interview and whether her photos themselves were a matter of public interest that could preclude her from claiming a privacy violation.
Judge's suit claimed her career as a business consultant was harmed as a result of the broadcast. But 3rd District Court judge L.A. Dever dismissed her claims, ruling that sending the photographs to a TV reporter didn't necessarily mean they would be broadcast. He also said that Judge couldn't claim a privacy violation because she had exposed much of the same body parts when she had worn a bikini in public.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed nearly all of Dever's rulings and reinstated the lawsuit. Saltz appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
An attorney for Saltz, Zachary Peterson, told the justices that Judge had agreed to appear on the program and had gone to Saltz's office for the interview, which included video of her in a medical gown. Her motive was to help educate the public about how to chose a good cosmetic surgeon, he said.
"She knew what was going on," said Peterson. "That's the larger point."
The comment brought a quick retort from Justice Christine Durham.
"Whether she knew or not is not the question," said Durham. "The question is whether she consented."
Greg Hoole, an attorney for Judge, said she had not consented to releasing her name with the photographs. Under Saltz's interpretation of consent, "he could have turned over all the patients' photographs wholesale," Hoole said.
"Miss Judge never consented to have her photographs used by the news media," he said.
The court took the case under advisement. Judge previously settled the suit against Fox.