M.W.M. v. Buzogany
| Docket Number | 379 WDA 2022,380 WDA 2022,J-A29024-22 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 2023 |
| Parties | M.W.M. Appellant v. JOSEPH A. BUZOGANY, M.D., ARMSTRONG-INDIANA BEHAVIORAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM, INDIANA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, BARBARA A. MCKEE AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD L. MCKEE, ESQUIRE, THE COUNTY OF INDIANA, PA, AMY CLINE, LOUISE KELLER BIVENS, MSW, AND SALLY PRUGH M.W.M. Appellant v. JOSEPH A. BUZOGANY, M.D., ARMSTRONG-INDIANA BEHAVIORAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM, INDIANA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, BARBARA A. MCKEE AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD L. MCKEE, ESQUIRE, THE COUNTY OF INDIANA, PA, AMY CLINE, LOUISE KELLER BIVENS, MSW, AND SALLY PRUGH |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered March 10, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County Civil Division at No(s): 12227 CD 2018
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
In this consolidated appeal, Appellant, M.W.M., appeals from two March 10, 2022 orders entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County that granted, in part, two motions to compel specific responses to interrogatories, as well as the production of Appellant's medical, mental health, and substance abuse treatment records. One of the orders granted a motion to compel filed by Joseph A. Buzogany, M.D. ("Dr. Buzogany"), and the other granted a motion to compel filed jointly by Donald L. McKee, Esquire ("Attorney McKee") and the County of Indiana Pennsylvania ("Indiana County").[1] We affirm the March 10, 2022 orders but remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.[2]
The trial court summarized the factual history as follows:
This case involves an incident that occurred on December 20, 2016. The Pennsylvania State Police received a [telephone] call indicating that [Appellant] was contemplating suicide. This report led to an altercation between [Appellant] and the Pennsylvania State Police[. Appellant] was tased during the incident. It was later determined that [Appellant] was under the influence of prescribed medication and alcohol during this altercation. [Appellant] was taken into custody and transported to IRMC. While at IRMC, [Appellant's] wife executed the documents necessary to have [Appellant] involuntarily committed under 50 P.S. [§ ]7302 was evaluated by [Dr.] Buzogany and a [commitment] hearing under 50 P.S. [§ ]7303[ (relating to the extended involuntary emergency mental health treatment certified by a judge or mental health review officer)[4] was held.
Trial Court Order (Buzogany), 3/10/22, at ¶1; see also Trial Court Order (McKee), 3/10/22, at ¶1. Upon conclusion of the December 22, 2016 commitment hearing, a mental health review officer authorized Appellant's extended commitment pursuant to Section 7303 of the MHPA.
Sometime thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for review of the certification for his involuntary emergency examination and treatment ("petition for review"). Appellant's petition for review was docketed at trial court docket number 12250 CD 2016. On December 27, 2018, the trial court granted Appellant's petition for review, finding that the warrant for Appellant's emergency examination was not properly issued and that Appellant's due process rights, as they pertain to the involuntary commitment process under the MPHA, were violated. Trial Court Opinion and Order (12250 CD 2016), 12/27/18, at 8, 12. In granting Appellant's petition for review, the trial court vacated Appellant involuntary commitment under Section 7303 and expunged Appellant's records of involuntary commitment under Section 7302 and Section 7303.[5] Id.
Appellant subsequently filed a legal action against Dr. Buzogany, Attorney McKee, Indiana County, BDHP, IRMC, Cline, Bivens, and Prugh alleging they violated his due process rights and, as to certain defendants, committed professional malpractice during the intake process in December 2016. On December 12, 2019, Appellant filed a third amended complaint, asserting the following causes of action: Count I - violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; Count II - violations of his procedural due process rights; Count III - violations of his substantive due process rights; Count IV - gross negligence and willful misconduct under Section 7114(a) of the MHPA;[6] Count V - legal malpractice; and Count VI - professional malpractice.[7] Third Amended Complaint, 12/12/19, at ¶¶116 - 252. After discovery commenced, Attorney McKee and Indiana County filed a motion to compel Appellant to fully respond to questions 1 and 2 of their first request for production of documents ("Attorney McKee and Indiana County's motion to compel").[8] See Attorney McKee and Indiana County's Motion to Compel, 9/25/20, at ¶3. In their motion to compel, Attorney McKee and Indiana County asserted, inter alia, that Appellant impliedly waived any confidentiality privilege by placing his mental health at issue in the pending litigation. Id. at ¶13. On October 13, 2020, Appellant filed a reply and a brief in opposition to Attorney McKee and Indiana County's motion to compel.
On November 18, 2020, Dr. Buzogany filed a motion to compel more specific responses to his interrogatories, numbered 6 through 9, and to his request for production of documents, numbered 3, contained within his first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents ("Dr. Buzogany's motion to compel").[9] In his motion to compel, Dr. Buzogany asserted that Appellant impliedly waived any confidentiality privilege to his mental health records by placing his mental health history directly at issue in the current litigation. Dr. Buzogany's Motion to Compel, 11/18/20, at ¶¶21, 25-26. Appellant filed a response to Dr. Buzogany's motion to compel on January 25, 2021.
On March 10, 2022, the trial court granted, in part, Dr. Buzogany's motion to compel. Trial Court Order (Buzogany), 3/10/22, at 6. Specifically, the trial court ordered disclosure of all "records and information relating to [Appellant's] history of medical and mental health treatment, as well as any substance abuse treatment, for the five-year period from December 20, 2011, to December 19, 2016." Id. (). That same day, the trial court granted, in part, Attorney McKee and Indiana County's motion to compel. Trial Court Order (McKee), 3/10/22, at 6. Specifically, the trial court ordered responses to "all discovery requests seeking records and information relating to [Appellant's] history of medical and mental health treatment, as well as any substance abuse treatment, for the period from January 1, 2013, to December 19, 2016." Id. (). As part of both March 10, 2022 orders, the trial court directed that all records produced in response to Dr. Buzogany's and Attorney McKee and Indiana County's requests be summitted to the trial court for in-camera review. The trial court further stated that, upon review of the submitted records, the trial court "shall exclude all records, the discovery of which is contrary to the findings of" the March 10, 2022 orders. Trial Court Order (Buzogany), 3/10/22, at 6; see also Trial Court Order (McKee), 3/10/22, at 6. This appeal followed.[10]Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
Appellant's Brief at 4 (extraneous capitalization omitted).[11] Appellant's issues, in toto, challenge the trial court's orders that compelled more complete responses and more expansive production of documents related to his medical, mental health, and substance abuse treatment records as part of the discovery proceedings in the pending action.[12]Id. at 24-47. Appellant asserts that his mental health and substance abuse treatment records are protected by Section 7111 of the MHPA[13] and Section 1690.108 of the DAA, which relates to the confidentiality of drug and alcohol treatment records.[14] Appellant's Brief at 34.
Generally, our standard of review for discovery orders is as follows:
In reviewing the propriety of a discovery order, our standard of review is whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion occurs if the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial