Heinemann v. Mitchell, A
| Decision Date | 20 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. A,A |
| Citation | 8 Ohio Misc. 390,36 O.O.2d 369,220 N.E.2d 616 |
| Parties | , 36 O.O.2d 369, 37 O.O.2d 365 Lissette HEINEMANN and Edwin W. Heinemann, Plaintiffs, v. Charles MITCHELL, Defendant. 190525. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Common Pleas |
This case is before the Court on the Application for Advice and Instructions filed with the Court by Miss Edna Todd, Notary Public, who is acting as Commissioner at the taking of depositions.
Defendant is taking the deposition of the Record Librarian of the Good Samaritan Hospital and seeks to compel the production of Plaintiff's Hospital records while a patient at the Hospital. Plaintiff objects to the production of the records on the ground that they contain privileged communications between Plaintiff and her Physician.
By consent of the parties, photographic copies of the original records were substituted for the originals and turned over to the Notary who then sealed them and delivered them to the Court together with a transcript of the deposition and her request that the Court advise her as to whether she should compel the production of the records by the Record Librarian.
The Court has examined the records and is of the opinion that they do contain some matter which may be privileged.
The issue is whether Defendant may, by taking the deposition of the Record Librarian, inspect Plaintiff's Hospital records as a part of his preparation for trial over the objection of the Plaintiff on the ground of privilege.
All questions of the admissibility of Hospital records generally at the trial have been laid to rest by our Supreme Court in the case of Weis v. Weis, 147 Ohio St. 416, 72 N.E.2d 245, 169 A.L.R. 668. However, the question of whether the production of such records may be compelled at a deposition hearing where it is claimed that they contain certain privileged matter, seems not to have been decided in this State.
While it is well settled that Hospital records made in the regular course of business and pertaining to the business of hospitalization and recording observable acts, transactions, occurrences, or events incident to the treatment of a patient are admissible as evidence, it is equally well settled that where such records contain communications between physician and patient which have been reduced to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucson Medical Center Inc. v. Rowles
...at 136) See also Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. William J. Champion and Co., 350 F.2d 115, 130 (6th Cir. 1965); Heinemann v. Mitchell, 8 Ohio Misc. 390, 220 N.E.2d 616, 617 (1964); People v. Lapsley, 26 Mich.App. 424, 182 N.W.2d 601, 603 (1970); Weis v. Weis, 147 Ohio St. 416, 72 N.E.2d 245, 252......
-
Kromenacker v. Blystone
...status. See Weis, supra, 147 Ohio St. at 429, 34 O.O. at 356, 72 N.E.2d at 252. See, also, Heinemann v. Mitchell (C.P.1964), 8 Ohio Misc. 390, 391-392, 36 O.O.2d 369, 370, 220 N.E.2d 616, 617; Pacheco v. Ortiz (C.P.1983), 11 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 2, 11 OBR 43, 44, 463 N.E.2d 670, 672. Only those ......
-
Pacheco v. Ortiz
...of the privileged records of a patient absent a judicial determination that such inspection is proper or required, Heinemann v. Mitchell (1964) 8 Ohio Misc. 390. The Foundation has no evidence whatsoever indicating that the patient whose records are the subject of the subpoena has waived th......
-
Stanford Washkewicz v. Leonard A. Kleinman, 84-LW-3116
... ... diagnosis contained in the plaintiff's medical records ... would be error, Heinemann v. Mitchell (1964), 8 Ohio ... Misc. 390, 391-392 ... One ... such exception or implied waiver occurs where the ... ...