In re Andress

• Decision Date: 11 May 2021
• Docket Number: No. ED 108755,ED 108755
• Citation: 624 S.W.3d 894
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: In the ESTATE OF: William Ira ANDRESS, Deceased, Appellant.

624 S.W.3d 894

In the ESTATE OF: William Ira ANDRESS, Deceased, Appellant.

No. ED 108755

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.

Filed: May 11, 2021

Henry P. Elster, 101 S. Hanley, Ste. 1280, Clayton, MO 63105, for appellant.

Pro Se Amy Youngstrom, 292 Arbor Pl., St. Louis, MO 63088, Annamarie Francis, 308 N. Van Buren, Kirkwood, MO 63122, Janice and Corey D. Andress, 7236 Teal, St. Louis, MO 63133, James R. Wright Jr., 7700 Bonhomme Ave 7^th fl., Ste. 1502, Clayton, MO 63105, Justin W. Ruth 7700 Bonhomme Ave., 7^th fl., Clayton, MO 63105, for respondent.

Robin Ransom, Presiding Judge

Introduction

Rebecca Pierce, Mark Andress, Miles Andress, and Angela Kuda (together, "Appellants") appeal from the judgment of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, Probate Division ("Probate court") granting the Petition for Determination of Heirship filed by Daniel J. Palmer ("Palmer"). We affirm.

Background

In June 2019, Palmer filed a Petition for Determination of Heirship ("Petition"), asserting he was entitled to an equal share of the Estate of William Andress ("Decedent"). In his Petition, he asserted the following. Decedent died intestate in January 2018. Peter Andress ("Peter"), deceased, was a natural and biological son of Decedent. In 1974, Peter engaged in sexual intercourse with Diana Lederle ("Lederle"), resulting in Palmer's birth in April 1975. Because Palmer was the living and biological son of Peter, he was an heir at law of Decedent and was entitled to an equal share of Decedent's estate under Section 474.010(2)(a),¹ in that Palmer is a descendant of Decedent's child. Rebecca Pierce, a living heir of Decedent, objected to Palmer's Petition. Palmer filed a motion to compel DNA testing, asserting that, although paternity had not previously been determined before Peter's death, Palmer could be established as Peter's son through avuncular DNA testing of Peter's siblings. The Probate court granted the motion to compel DNA testing under Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 60.01(a)(1).² Appellants plus Amy Youngstrom, all living heirs of Decedent and siblings of Peter, then filed a motion to exclude both their privileged healthcare information and the testimony of George Maha, J.D., Ph.D., ("Dr. Maha") at trial. They asserted their medical records, including any DNA tests, were not admissible at trial under the physician-patient privilege, and that Dr. Maha did not qualify as an expert witness and his deposition testimony was unreliable. The Probate court denied the motion after a hearing.

At a bench trial before Commissioner William J. Gust, the following evidence was adduced.³ The Decedent had nine children: Janice Andress ("Janice"),⁴ Peter, Paul Andress ("Paul"), Rebecca Pierce, Annamarie Francis, Timothy Mark Andress, Amy Youngstrom, Miles Andress, and Angela Kuda. At the time of the trial, Peter and Paul were deceased and the remaining siblings were still living, and Paul had one living child, Corey Andress ("Corey").⁵ Palmer testified to the following. Lederle was his mother and is deceased. When he was born, his mother was married to Gary Robidoux ("Robidoux"), but Robidoux was not his biological father and Robidoux's name was not entered on Palmer's birth certificate. His mother told him on multiple occasions that Peter was his biological father but Palmer never met Peter. Lederle later married John Palmer, whom she met after Palmer's birth. Palmer took his step-father's name when he was 16 years old, but John Palmer did not legally adopt Palmer. During the pendency of this case, Palmer and Janice voluntarily submitted to avuncular DNA testing, which determined there was a 99.1943 percent probability that Janice was Palmer's aunt, as compared to an untested, unrelated person of the general population. The DNA results were admitted by the Probate court over hearsay and foundation objections.

Over objections, Palmer submitted the deposition and report of Dr. Maha and requested he be endorsed as an expert in the field of paternity and relationship testing. The Probate court received the report into evidence and ultimately found Dr. Maha qualified as an expert witness in the field of paternity. Dr. Maha's deposition and report revealed the following. In the summer of 2019, Palmer, Janice, Corey, Appellants, and Amy Youngstrom all submitted DNA samples to Laboratory Corporation ("LabCorp"). Dr. Maha performed testing on the DNA samples submitted. Dr. Maha testified the likelihood that Appellants and Amy Youngstrom are related to Palmer is 99.9962% more likely than someone of the general population, and he opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a brother of Appellants and Amy Youngstrom was likely to be the father of Palmer.

Following the trial, the Probate court granted Palmer's Petition after determining Palmer had established by clear and convincing evidence he was the natural and biological son of Peter and thus was entitled to his intestate share of Decedent's estate. The Honorable Ellen S. Levy confirmed the Commissioner's judgment. This appeal follows.

Discussion

Point I

In their first point on appeal, Appellants argue the Probate court erred in admitting their DNA evidence because the evidence was privileged and inadmissible, in that the DNA results were protected by the physician-patient privilege. We disagree.

We review de novo the Probate court's admission of the DNA evidence because the admission concerned the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law. State ex rel. Nothum v. Walsh , 380 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Mo. banc 2016). This Court's primary rule in interpreting statutes is to ascertain the intent of the legislature from the language used in the statute, considering the words in their plain and ordinary meaning, and to give effect to that intent. Li Lin v. Ellis , 594 S.W.3d 238, 241-42 (Mo. banc 2000).

Section 491.060(5) provides that a licensed physician shall be incompetent to testify concerning any information that he or she may have acquired from any patient while attending the patient in a professional character that was necessary to enable him or her to provide treatment for the patient. We strictly construe statutes that create privileges. State ex rel. Health Midwest Dev. Group, Inc. v. Daugherty , 965 S.W.2d 841, 843 (Mo. banc 1998). Claims of privileges are "impediments to discovery of truth" and are contrary to the usual rules of evidence, and thus we carefully scrutinize these claims for whether excluding the relevant evidence serves a greater public good. Id. The purpose of the physician-patient privilege is to allow the patient to obtain complete and appropriate treatment by encouraging candid communication between patient and physician without fear of an invasion of privacy from the unauthorized disclosure of that information. See State ex rel. Dean v. Cunningham , 182 S.W.3d 561, 567 (Mo. banc 2006).

Applying both the plain language and the intent of the statute, in order for Section 491.060(5) ’s privilege to apply, the physician must both have acquired the information while attending to the patient in a professional character and the information must have been necessary to enable the physician to provide complete and appropriate treatment for the patient. See id. (reiterating that under language of statute, patient-physician privilege applies to information physician acquired from patient while attending patient and that was necessary to allow physician to provide treatment to patient). Again, we apply privileges strictly, as they are an inherent impediment to the discovery of truth. See Daugherty , 965 S.W.2d at 843.

Here, Appellants sought to prevent Dr. Maha from testifying at trial to the results of their DNA tests, asserting the results were privileged medical records not admissible under the physician-patient privilege. However, because Dr. Maha neither attended Appellants as patients in a professional character nor provided them treatment, the physician-patient privilege does not apply. The law's interest that a patient be able to have candid communications with his or her physician in order to obtain complete and appropriate treatment is simply not at issue here. See Cunningham , 182 S.W.3d at 567.

Rather, the medical records in question here are DNA results gathered pursuant to a valid court order under Rule 60.01 for the limited purpose of establishing paternity. Rule 60.01(a)(1) allows a trial court to order a party to submit to and produce blood examinations when the blood relationship of a party is in controversy in the action. It is allowable to use Rule 60.01 for the purpose of determining paternity. See, e.g. , State ex rel. D--- K--- B--- by V--- R--- B--- v. W---G--- I--- , 654 S.W.2d 218, 219-20 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983). If a person were able to prevent their DNA from being used in court to establish a blood relationship by contorting the physician-patient privilege beyond what its plain language dictates, then Rule 60.01 ’s language allowing courts to order blood examinations to determine blood relationships would be a nullity. Courts eschew interpretations of laws, and likewise those of rules, that render any provision a nullity because such interpretations do not give effect to the plain language of the law. Cf. State v. Knox , 604 S.W.3d 316, 322 (Mo. banc 2020).

Regardless, if there was any error in the admission of Appellants’ DNA evidence here it was harmless because Appellants’ DNA evidence was cumulative to other DNA evidence submitted that Janice was 99% more likely to be Palmer's aunt than the general public. Janice did not raise the physician-patient privilege to prevent admission of her DNA results. Considering the specific facts of the situation here, Appellants’ claim that their privacy was invaded by evidence that they, like their sister, were aunts and uncles to a person already established to be their nephew is not supported by logic. The Probate court did not err in admitting Appellants’ DNA evidence.

Point I is denied.

...