Exam Was Monitored, Lawsuit Says : Courts: Patient contends her privacy was invaded. Security camera surveillance is needed, hospital replies.

A 26-year-old Orange woman has sued Western Medical Center-Santa Ana, alleging her breast and gynecological examination at the hospital was monitored by a surveillance camera and shown in at least one nurses’ station where it was visible to “total strangers.”

The lawsuit contends the hospital and Dr. Zwi Steindler invaded the patient’s privacy by neglecting to ask for permission before running the camera during the April, 1994, procedure and failing to inform her that her exam was being monitored.

Robert B. Treister, the woman’s attorney, said his client came to the hospital emergency room at the suggestion of her physician for treatment of an infection of her Cesarean section incision.

Treister, who spoke on condition that his client not be named, said she was seen by Steindler and a nurse, who in the course of treatment gave her a vaginal and breast examination.

Unbeknown to the woman, Treister said, the exam was being monitored by a hospital security camera. Six-second feeds were transferred, at frequent intervals, to monitors in at least one nurses’ station, he said.

Los Angeles attorney Ralph Helton, who is representing the hospital, said Wednesday that activities in the emergency department are monitored 24 hours a day for the “safety and security” of patients. Helton said the camera in this case was behind the patient’s head and could not have revealed what the doctor was doing.

The hospital uses security cameras because “there can’t always be a health provider in the room,” he said. “If something happens to the patient, we want to know about it.”

The physician, Steindler, is out of the country and could not be reached for comment.

Treister, who filed the lawsuit last week in Orange County Superior Court, said “janitors, orderlies, attendants--all strangers” often gather at nurses’ stations and may have seen the procedure. Also, he said, the monitors are visible to paramedics and police officers who drop people off, and sometimes to the general public.

Treister said his client signed a consent form that would allow photography of the procedure for educational purposes, but there was nothing in the form about security cameras.

He said the patient only learned of the camera after the exam was completed, when her husband asked about the camera.

“She was pretty upset,” Treister said. “She turned red, cried. She was embarrassed. She told the nurse she never would have gotten the exam done if she knew about the camera.”

The woman is seeking unspecified damages for emotional distress and lost wages.

Helton said he does not know if the patient was told about the camera but that its presence in the room was obvious.