Mattison v. Poulen, 260-74
| Docket Nº | No. 260-74 |
| Citation | 134 Vt. 158, 353 A.2d 327 |
| Case Date | February 04, 1976 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Page 327
v.
Robert A. POULEN and the State of Vermont.
Motion for Reargument Denied Feb. 24, 1976.
Page 328
[134 Vt. 159] Bloomer & Bloomer, Rutland, for plaintiff.
Joseph H. Badgewick and Allan R. Keyes, Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for Poulen and State.
Glenn A. Jarrett, Downs, Rachlin & Martin, St. Johnsbury, for Poulen.
Before [134 Vt. 158] BARNEY, C. J., SMITH, DALEY and LARROW, JJ., and SHANGRAW, C. J., (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
[134 Vt. 159] SMITH, Justice.
Plaintiff's appeal comes to this Court by way of an appeal from an October, 1974, interlocutory discovery order of the Bennington Superior Court favorable to the defendants. The motion for permission to appeal was denied by the trial court, but granted by this Court on December 12, 1974. The action below is based upon a claim by the plaintiff for damages as a result of an automobile accident on the Richville Road, in Manchester, Vermont, which the plaintiff complains was caused by the negligence of the defendants.
The plaintiff states that the general questions of law presented here are whether 12 V.S.A. § 1612 applies not only to the physician disclosing information about the patient but also: (1) whether or not the physician's reports to the patient are privileged; (2) whether or not the physician's reports to the patient's attorney are privileged; (3) whether or not the physician's statements to his patient are privileged;
Page 329
(4) whether or not the patient-plaintiff can be compelled to state under oath, under penalty of perjury, as to what his physician will testify in connection with the alleged injury; (5) whether any party may be required to obtain information which he does not have or have access to and make the same available to the other party. The last question raised we regard[134 Vt. 160] as separate and distinct from the privilege issues raised in the other questions of law submitted.12 V.S.A. § 1612 is entitled 'Patients' privilege'. In subsection (a), it states, and we quote:
Unless the patient waives the privilege or unless the privilege is waived by an express provision of law, a person authorized to practice medicine or dentistry, or a registered professional or licensed practical nurse, shall not be allowed to disclose any information which he acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity.
This section of the statutes was enacted in the adjourned session of the Vermont General Assembly in 1973, with an effective date of July 1, 1974.
The record of the case before us discloses that the complaint of the plaintiff, the answers and counterclaims of the defendants, the propounding of the interrogatories which are in question here, as well as the answers to them by the plaintiff had all occurred before the effective date of the enactment.
The threshold question presented then is whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to whatever privileges would be granted to him by 12 V.S.A. § 1612. In deciding this question, we must be guided by the law as set forth in 1 V.S.A. § 213:
Acts of the general assembly, except acts regulating practice in court, relating to the competency of witnesses or to amendments of process or pleading, shall not affect a suit begun or pending at the time of their passage.
Unless the provisions of 1 V.S.A. § 213 allow a retroactive application of 12 V.S.A. § 1612, the privilege sought by the plaintiff would be barred for the reason that the suit brought by him was prior to the effective date of 12 V.S.A. § 1612.
The case of Murray v. Mattison, 63 Vt. 479, 21 A. 532 (1891) stated, relating to a similar statute, '(a)nd as a rule of construction, the law is, that when a new enactment deals with practice and procedure only, it applies to all action, unless otherwise expressed, whether commenced before or after its passage. Id. at 480, 21 A. at 532.
[134 Vt. 161] The same reasoning must be applied here to the exception in 1 V.S.A. § 213 relating to the competency of witnesses. 'Competency relates . . . to the relation of the witness to the matter under investigation . . .. Competency is involved in the term...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kasper, 324-76
...demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial. State v. Norton, supra, 134 Vt. at 105, 353 A.2d at 327. That burden has not been met During its charge to the jury, the trial court explained that the burden is on the State to establish every e......
-
State v. Bailey, 82-329
...of "any suspicion of extraneous influences." State v. Prime, 137 Vt. 340, 343, 403 A.2d 270, 272 (1979) (quoting State v. Woodard, supra, 134 Vt. at 158, 353 A.2d at 323-24). The facts of this case, therefore, are unlike those in State v. Onorato, 142 Vt. 99, 453 A.2d 393 (1982), and State ......
-
State v. Kandzior, No. 19-069
...specific bench conference." (Emphasis added.) ¶ 39. "No right is more fundamental to a defendant than a fair trial by jury ...." Woodard, 134 Vt. at 158, 353 A.2d at 323. Given the significance of this right, the trial court's limited questioning of the jury, speculation about what the 236 ......
-
State v. Valley, 83-534
...contained in V.R.E. 503(d)(3) is intended to "carr[y] forward the Court's interpretation of 12 V.S.A. § 1612 in Mattison v. Poulen, 134 Vt. 158, 163, 353 A.2d 327, 330 (1976), that the privilege is waived by the commencement of the action not only as to the actual condition in suit but as t......
-
State v. Kasper, No. 324-76
...demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial. State v. Norton, supra, 134 Vt. at 105, 353 A.2d at 327. That burden has not been met During its charge to the jury, the trial court explained that the burden is on the State to establish every e......
-
State v. Bailey, No. 82-329
...of "any suspicion of extraneous influences." State v. Prime, 137 Vt. 340, 343, 403 A.2d 270, 272 (1979) (quoting State v. Woodard, supra, 134 Vt. at 158, 353 A.2d at 323-24). The facts of this case, therefore, are unlike those in State v. Onorato, 142 Vt. 99, 453 A.2d 393 (1982), and State ......
-
State v. Kandzior, No. 19-069
...specific bench conference." (Emphasis added.) ¶ 39. "No right is more fundamental to a defendant than a fair trial by jury ...." Woodard, 134 Vt. at 158, 353 A.2d at 323. Given the significance of this right, the trial court's limited questioning of the jury, speculation about what the 236 ......
-
State v. Valley, No. 83-534
...contained in V.R.E. 503(d)(3) is intended to "carr[y] forward the Court's interpretation of 12 V.S.A. § 1612 in Mattison v. Poulen, 134 Vt. 158, 163, 353 A.2d 327, 330 (1976), that the privilege is waived by the commencement of the action not only as to the actual condition in suit but as t......