In the aftermath of the broadcast, a lawyer for NewYork-Presbyterian tried to assure the family that no one could identify them from what was shown on TV. "Please be assured that your father's and your family members' images, likeness and other potentially identifying information were completely obscured in the episode," the hospital's associate general counsel, Caroline S. Fox, wrote in an emailed response to Kenneth Chanko's complaint.

Yet a few weeks later, Mrs. Chanko said she received a call from a woman who used to work as a pet sitter for her and her husband. "She said to me, 'Do you watch "NY Med?".' She said, 'That was Mark, wasn't it?' She recognized him."

Officials with the state's health department concluded that NewYork-Presbyterian had violated Mr. Chanko's rights and, indeed, its own privacy policy. "The patient was unaware and uninformed that he was being filmed and viewed by a camera crew while receiving medical treatment thus his privacy in receiving medical treatment was not ensured," inspectors wrote in a citation released under New York's Freedom of Information Law.

New York regulators did not impose any sanctions on the hospital.

Federal health officials are still reviewing whether NewYork-Presbyterian was obliged to get permission from Mr. Chanko or his family before allowing a TV crew to film him.

HIPAA, more formally the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, does not give patients a right to sue if doctors and hospitals violate their privacy. Neither does New York State's Patients' Bill of Rights, courts have ruled.

A state Supreme Court judge in Manhattan narrowed the Chankos' lawsuit, but allowed some claims to proceed. In court filings, lawyers for the hospital and Dr. Schubl made the argument that the law prohibits medical professionals from sharing information about a patient only after he has been examined or treated. Because the "NY Med" film crew had shot video during Mr. Chanko's treatment, they claimed, it was legal.

In November, an appellate panel issued a unanimous order dismissing the case. The conduct "was not so extreme and outrageous" to justify a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the judges wrote. The doctor and hospital, the judges added, did not breach their duty to avoid disclosing personal information "since no such information" was disclosed.

Privacy experts say the legal arguments made by ABC and the hospital have troubling implications for patients seeking medical care.

"Taken to its logical conclusion, what they're saying is you can invite anyone in, and unless the patient objects at that very moment, there's no violation of the patient's privacy," said Joy Pritts, an expert in state health privacy laws who until recently was the chief privacy officer at the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. "That's crazy."

The family is working on an appeal. "If this ever got in front of a jury, I can't imagine a jury not thinking a wrong was done to my father and to us," Kenneth Chanko said. "Morally and ethically it's not right, and I would also think that legally it can't possibly be right."

Asked what she would do if the case fails, Mrs. Chanko said the family would not stop pushing for redress. "If there's no applicable law, there most certainly should be," she said. "I'm willing to just pursue it all the way. Why shouldn't there be a law against this kind of thing?"

Theodoric Meyer contributed to this story.

Charles Ornstein is a senior reporter for ProPublica covering health care and the pharmaceutical industry.

This article was first published by ProPublica, co-published with the New York Times on Jan. 2, 2015 at 8 a.m. It is published here with permission.