Cannell v. Medical and Surgical Clinic, S.C.
| Decision Date | 06 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--8,74--8 |
| Citation | 315 N.E.2d 278,21 Ill.App.3d 383 |
| Parties | Julian E. CANNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The MEDICAL AND SURGICAL CLINIC, S.C., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Kavanagh, Scully, sudow, White & Frederick, Peoria, for plaintiff-appellant.
Davis, Morgan & Witherell, Peoria, for defendant-appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Peoria County, Illinois, allowing the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant in this case and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.
The complaint of the plaintiff, Julian E. Cannell, alleged that a certain Steve Nelson was treated by one of the doctors associated with the defendant, The Medical and Surgical Clinic, a corporation; that Steve Nelson signed a form authorizing the plaintiff to obtain information regarding Steve Nelson's physical condition from the defendant; that this form and a request for a medical report were sent to the doctor who had treated Steve Nelson; that another doctor associated with the defendant informed the plaintiff that they would not release any medical information about their patient, Steve Nelson, without the consent of his employer; that the plaintiff then advised the latter doctor that the standards of practice governing the relationship between lawyers and physicians approved by the Peoria Bar Association and the executive council of the Peoria Medical Society required that a report be furnished promptly by the physician upon receipt of a written authorization from the patient or a party examined; and that the defendant nevertheless refused to furnish any medical information concerning the examination or treatment of Steve Nelson.
The defendant's motion to dismiss stated that the complaint failed to present a claim upon which relief could be granted; that the plaintiff was attempting to deprive the defendant of its property without due process of law; that the records and information sought by the plaintiff were found in the private files of the defendant, and were subject to production only in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff's physical condition was in issue; that the plaintiff was the petitioner in a proceeding to recover workmen's compensation benefits from his employer, and he could subpoena the defendant's records for use at the workmen's compensation hearing but had no right to prehearing discovery; and that the plaintiff had been given treatment on behalf of his employer and so the employer was a necessary party to this proceeding.
Our review of the trial court's order of dismissal requires us to consider whether a physician has a duty to disclose medical information to a patient on request, apart from any obligation which might be imposed on him by issuance of a subpoena under Section 16 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 48 sec. 138.16), or utilization of discovery procedures under Section 58 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110, sec. 58). It appears that there are no reported Illinois decisions which establish the existence of such a duty. However, in a fairly recent case decided outside Illinois a physician was held to have a duty to permit inspection of medical records in the absence of legal proceedings in which disclosure could be compelled.
Emmett v. Eastern Dispensary and Casualty Hospital, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 50, 396 F.2d 931 (1967), was a suit for damages under the Survival and Wrongful Death Acts of the District of Columbia. Joseph N. Emmett had died while a patient in a hospital, and William J. Emmett, his son and the administrator of his estate, charged that the hospital and the attending physician through their negligence had caused his father's death. The limitation period applicable to a wrongful death action was one year, and suit was not filed within that length of time. The son alleged, however, that he was unable to get into court within the one-year period because of the defendants' conduct in concealing the facts relating to his father's death. He had made several demands for inspection of the decedent's medical records before being appointed administrator...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peralta v. Martinez
......medical malpractice case. The appeal, which involves only ... A cottonoid was left at the surgical site. Ordinarily, plaintiff's claim for relief would have ...Cleveland Clinic, 32 Ohio St.2d 198, 61 Ohio Ops.2d 430, 290 N.E.2d 916 ... Cannell v. Medical and Surgical Clinic, S.C., 21 Ill.App.3d 383, ......
-
Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
......: (1) the promulgated code of ethics adopted by the medical profession and upon which the public relies to be ...745, 403 N.E.2d 1349; Cannell v. Medical & Surgical Clinic (1974), 21 Ill.App.3d 383, 315 ......
-
Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Services of City of New York
...... for the production and inspection of all her own medical and psychological records in Graham Windham's custody. She ...84 Ohio Law Abs. 224, 170 N.E.2d 261; see also, Cannell v. Med. and Surgical Clinic, 21 Ill.App.3d 383, 315 N.E.2d ......
-
Wear v. Walker
...... 24, 1988, plaintiff was a patient of, and received medical treatment from, defendants. In the course of providing ...& Cas. Hosp., 396 F.2d 931, 935 (D.C.Cir.1967); Cannell v. Medical and Surgical Clinic, 21 Ill.App.3d 383, 315 ......
-
Information privacy/information property.
...physician's duty not to disclose information obtained in course of patient's treatment); Cannell v. Med. & Surgical Clinic, 315 N.E.2d 278 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974) (same); Doe v. Roe, 400 N.Y.S.2d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977) (same); McCormick v. England, 494 S.E.2d 431 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997) (1......