Arons v. Jutkowitz
Decision Date | 27 November 2007 |
Docket Number | 148.,147.,153. |
Parties | Manuel ARONS, Individually and as Executor of Phyllis Arons, Deceased, Respondent, v. Robert JUTKOWITZ et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. Tanya Webb, Respondent, v. New York Methodist Hospital et al., Appellants. Annette J. Kish, as Administrator. De Bonis Non of the Estate of James J. Jerge, Deceased, Respondent, v. David H. Graham, M.D., et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
These appeals call upon us to decide whether an attorney may interview an adverse party's treating physician privately
when the adverse party has affirmatively placed his or her medical condition in controversy. We conclude that an attorney may do so, although the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) ( ) through its Privacy Rule (45 CFR parts 160, 164) imposes procedural prerequisites unique to the informal discovery of health care professionals.
In Arons, plaintiff husband, individually and as executor of his late wife's estate, brought a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against several physicians, other medical professionals and two hospitals. He alleged that two of the physician defendants failed to tell decedent that her MRI revealed hydrocephalus, thus delaying proper medical care for 14 months as her health deteriorated. Decedent, who was hospitalized repeatedly for unavailing treatments in the roughly six months after her diagnosis, lapsed into a coma and died some weeks later.
Once plaintiff filed a note of issue, one of the physician defendants requested HIPAA-compliant authorizations so that his attorneys might seek to interview decedent's treating physician. Plaintiff refused, prompting defendants to ask Supreme Court for an order pursuant to HIPAA regulations (45 CFR 164.512[e][1][i]; 164.508) "directing plaintiff to provide authorizations permitting defense counsel to speak with certain physicians who rendered care to ... plaintiff related to claims being made in [the] action, if the physicians voluntarily agree to such interviews."
Plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed. The court opined that although plaintiff had waived the physician-patient privilege by bringing the lawsuit, defendants were entitled only to disclosure via the discovery devices enumerated in CPLR article 31 and the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts, which do not mention ex parte interviews, or mandate that a plaintiff execute authorizations permitting them. Further, "[i]n the absence of explicit authority in article 31 or the Uniform Rules or plaintiffs consent, defense counsel had long been prohibited from privately interviewing a plaintiff's treating physicians during discovery a "limit[] on disclosure ... imposed not because of the physician-patient privilege, which is generally waived by bringing a malpractice action, but by the very design of the specific disclosure devices available in CPLR article 31" (Arons v. Jutkowitz, 37 A.D.3d 94, 97, 825 N.Y.S.2d 738 [2d Dept.2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Next, the court conceded that while it had previously decided that a treating physician's testimony could not be precluded at trial on the basis of ex parte interviews conducted after the filing of the note of issue, those decisions neither "declare[d] that defense counsel [had] a right to such informal, post-note of issue
interviews," nor "require[d] plaintiffs to consent to them" (id.). Further, although HIPAA did not alter state law regarding these private interviews, it had created a "practical dilemma" for defense counsel seeking to conduct them because physicians refused to talk with them absent a HIPAA-compliant authorization or court order (id. at 99, 825 N.Y.S.2d 738).
Finally, the court remarked that after the filing of a note of issue, an order for additional pretrial discovery called for the requesting party to demonstrate "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" (id. at 100, 825 N.Y.S.2d 738, quoting 22 NYCRR 202.21[d] ); and that, in this case, the note of issue had been filed before HIPAA's privacy regulations became effective. "[I]n light of the unsettled nature of the law prior to [its] decision," the Appellate Division therefore modified Supreme Court's order by "deny[ing] ... defendants' motion with leave to move pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(d) for permission to conduct additional pretrial discovery relating to ... decedent's treating physicians as limited by article 31" (id. at 101, 825 N.Y.S.2d 738 [emphasis added]). The Appellate Division subsequently granted defendants' motion for leave to appeal, asking us whether its opinion and order were properly made.
In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff alleged that she suffered constant nausea, intractable vomiting and malnutrition as a result of a botched gastric stapling operation. Plaintiff, who weighed 450 pounds at the time of her surgery, lost 200 pounds afterwards.
Once the note of issue was filed, defendant physician and defendant hospital sought HIPAA-compliant authorizations for ex parte interviews with the gastroenterologist who treated plaintiff after her weight-loss operation, and the surgeon who operated on her to reverse the procedure. When plaintiff refused to supply authorizations, defendants moved to compel her to do so.
Supreme Court granted the motion and directed plaintiff to furnish authorizations for the interviews, subject to conditions that he had worked out in earlier litigation where the same issue had arisen. As was the case in Arons, these conditions included a direction for defense counsel to hand over to his adversary copies of all written statements and notations obtained from the physicians during the private interviews as well as any audio or video recordings or transcripts, and interview
memoranda or notes (excluding the attorneys' observations, impressions or analyses).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed Supreme Court's order for the reasons stated in Arons, and denied defendants' motions "without prejudice to making a motion in Supreme Court ... pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(d)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Byrne v. Avery Ctr. for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., SC 18904
...pretrial practices must be HIPAA compliant; see, e.g., Law v. Zuckerman, 307 F. Supp. 2d 705, 710-11 (D. Md. 2004); Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 N.Y.3d 393, 415, 880 N.E.2d 831, 850 N.Y.S.2d 345 (2007); a requirement that extends to responses to subpoenas. See State v. La Cava, Superior Court, jud......
-
Willeford v. Klepper
......, 372 N.J.Super. 105, 855 A.2d 608, 623 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2003) (recognizing that ex parte interviews are permitted under state law); Arons v. Jutkowitz , 9 N.Y.3d 393, 850 N.Y.S.2d 345, 880 N.E.2d 831, 842 (2007) (holding that state law allowing ex parte interviews did not conflict with ......
-
Byrne v. Avery Ctr. for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.
...court pretrial practices must be HIPAA compliant; see, e.g., Law v. Zuckerman, 307 F.Supp.2d 705, 710–11 (D.Md.2004) ; Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 N.Y.3d 393, 415, 880 N.E.2d 831, 850 N.Y.S.2d 345 (2007) ; a requirement that extends to responses to subpoenas. See State v. La Cava, Superior Court,......
-
Davis v. S. Nassau Cmtys. Hosp.
...to the injured party of the patient's medical records and communications 46 N.E.3d 634 with the physician (see Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 N.Y.3d 393, 409, 850 N.Y.S.2d 345, 880 N.E.2d 831 [2007] ; Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d 278, 287–288, 539 N.Y.S.2d 707, 536 N.E.2d 1126 [1989] ). An injured ......
-
Table of cases
...Arnold Herstand & Co., Inc. v. Gallery: Gertrude Stein, Inc., 211 A.D.2d 77, 626 N.Y.S.2d 74 (1st Dept. 1995), § 5:30 Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 N.Y.3d 393, 850 N.Y.S.2d 345 (2007), §§ 7:90, 16:70 Arpino v. F.J.F. & Sons Electric Co., Inc. , 102 A.D.3d 201, 959 N.Y.S.2d 74 (2d Dept. 2012), § 18:......
-
Privileges
...to permit her non-party physician to be interviewed informally by defense counsel after a note of issue has been iled. Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 N.Y.3d 393, 850 N.Y.S.2d 345 (2007). HIPPA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 USCA 1320d et seq .) protects “health ......
-
Expert witnesses
...cases must provide HIPAA compliant authorizations for defendants or counsel to interview treating physicians. Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 N.Y.3d 393, 850 N.Y.S.2d 345 (2007). A statement that the purpose of the interview was solely to assist defense counsel at trial and that participation was vol......
-
Privileges
...permit her non-party physician to be interviewed informally by defense counsel after a note of issue has been filed. Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 N.Y.3d 393, 850 N.Y.S.2d 345 (2007). HIPPA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 USCA 1320d et seq .) protects “health in......