Maxwell v. Hobart Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1991
• Docket Number: No. 1-90-2017,1-90-2017
• Citation: 576 N.E.2d 268,216 Ill.App.3d 108,159 Ill.Dec. 599
• Parties: , 159 Ill.Dec. 599 Lonnie MAXWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOBART CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee and Third Party Plaintiff (Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Defendant).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 268

576 N.E.2d 268

216 Ill.App.3d 108, 159 Ill.Dec. 599

Lonnie MAXWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOBART CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee and Third Party Plaintiff (Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Defendant).

No. 1-90-2017.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Sixth Division.

June 21, 1991.

Charles A. Boyle & Assoc., Ltd., Chicago (Charles A. Boyle and Liana A. Bizios, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess, Chicago (Francis A. Spina, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Justice McNAMARA delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Lonnie Maxwell, filed a two-count complaint against defendant Hobart Corporation for injuries sustained on June 8, 1986, when his hand became caught in a waste equipment machine manufactured by defendant. The complaint, which sounds in negligence and strict products liability, alleged that the system activated without warning while plaintiff attempted to clear a jam. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was employed by Northwestern Memorial Hospital ("Northwestern") in the food service area.

A test performed at Northwestern following the accident revealed that plaintiff's blood alcohol level was .136 grams. In responding to interrogatories, plaintiff indicated that he had consumed alcohol within the 24 hours prior to the accident, but failed to state the quantity consumed or the time.

Defendant issued a subpoena to Northwestern for production of all its records regarding plaintiff. (Defendant subsequently initiated a third-party claim against Northwestern.) Northwestern informed defendant that it refused to produce records from its "Employee Assistance Program" without plaintiff's authorization. Plaintiff refused to execute a release and Northwestern continued to refuse to produce the records. (Although the treatment records at issue are not part of the record on appeal, we gather from plaintiff's brief and from the parties at oral argument that the records concern plaintiff's treatment for alcoholism.)

Defendant subsequently filed its motion to compel disclosure of the employee assistance program records. The judge directed plaintiff to produce the records for in camera inspection and requested that both parties file briefs on whether the records were discoverable.

On May 11, 1990, after a hearing on defendant's motion and an in camera review of the records, the court ruled that the documents designated by Bates stamp series 300 were not privileged and were, therefore, discoverable. The court returned all the documents to plaintiff and ordered him to produce them within 14 days. The court also determined that the series 100 and 200 documents, not at issue on appeal, were protected from disclosure.

Despite the court's order, plaintiff refused to produce the discoverable documents. Defendant moved to compel plaintiff's compliance or, alternatively, for a rule to show cause against plaintiff's attorney. At the hearing on the motion, plaintiff, through counsel, indicated that he would not comply with the order due to the sensitive nature of the records. The court then entered a contempt order against the attorney, from which this appeal is taken.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 91 1/2, par. 801 et seq.) or the Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependency Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111 1/2, par. 6358-2) protects the records from disclosure. We consider each Act separately.

Initially, we note that a trial court is afforded great latitude in ruling on discovery matters, and this court will not disturb such rulings on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. (Computer Teaching Corp. v. Courseware Applications, Inc. (1990), 199 Ill.App.3d 154, 145 Ill.Dec. 198, 556 N.E.2d 816.) Pretrial discovery presupposes a range of relevance and materiality much broader than that of admissibility of evidence at trial. (134 Ill.2d R. 201(b)(1); Brostron v. Warmann (1989), 190 Ill.App.3d 87, 137 Ill.Dec. 379, 546 N.E.2d 3.) Moreover, privileges are to be strictly construed as exceptions to the general duty to disclose during discovery. Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (1990), 203 Ill.App.3d 172, 148 Ill.Dec. 496, 560 N.E.2d 1093.

Plaintiff first maintains on appeal that the trial court erroneously found that Northwestern's records regarding plaintiff's treatment for alcoholism were not protected by the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act ("Confidentiality Act").

Section 810 of the Confidentiality Act provides, in pertinent part:

"(a) Except as provided herein, in any civil * * * proceeding, * * * a recipient, and a therapist on behalf and in the interest of a recipient, has the privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent the disclosure of the recipient's record or communications." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 91 1/2, par. 810(a).)

The Confidentiality Act defines "recipient" as "a person who is receiving or has received mental health or developmental disabilities services (emphasis added)." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 91 1/2, par. 802(6).) Further, the statute defines "record" as follows: "[A]ny record kept by a therapist or by an agency in the course of providing mental health or development disabilities service to a recipient concerning the recipient and the services provided * * * (emphasis added)." Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 91 1/2, par. 802(7).

Plaintiff argues that alcoholism treatment is a mental health service within the meaning of the privilege. In support of this contention, plaintiff directs us to references to alcoholism as a "mental disorder" by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. We decline, however, to rely on such sources when to do so would defy principles of statutory construction and ignore legislative intent. Although the legislature did not define "mental health services" for purposes of the Confidentiality Act, we cannot conclude that the legislature intended "mental health services" to include alcoholism treatment.

It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that when two statutes deal with the same subject, one specific and one general, the more specific statute controls. (Crawford County State Bank v. Marine American National Bank (1990), 199 Ill.App.3d 236, 145 Ill.Dec. 224, 556 N.E.2d 842.) The Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 91 1/2, par. 801 [216 Ill.App.3d 112] et seq.) became effective on January 9, 1979. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 91 1/2, par. 6-107.) The Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependency Act, on the other hand, became effective on July 1, 1988. While both statutes protect against disclosure of treatment records, the latter pertains particularly to treatment of alcohol abuse. Because the records at issue here specifically concern alcoholism treatment, the record disclosure provisions of the Alcoholism Act, rather than the Confidentiality Act, control. We decline to give the Confidentiality Act the expansive construction urged by plaintiff.

Moreover, even if the Confidentiality Act protected alcoholism treatment records, we find that the statutory exception to the nondisclosure mandate applies here to permit disclosure. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 91 1/2, par. 810(a)(1).) The exception to the privilege arises:

"[I]n a civil * * * proceeding in which the recipient introduces his mental condition or any aspect of his services received for such condition as an element of his claim or defense, if and only to the extent the court in which the proceedings have been brought * * * finds, after in camera examination of testimony or other evidence, that it is relevant, probative, not unduly prejudicial or inflammatory, and otherwise clearly admissible; that other satisfactory evidence is demonstrably unsatisfactory as evidence of the facts sought to be established by such evidence; and that disclosure is more important to the interests of substantial justice than protection from injury to the therapist-recipient relationship or to the recipient or other whom disclosure is likely to harm * * *." Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 91 1/2, par. 810(a)(1).

Plaintiff maintains that the exception does not apply because he did not raise his mental condition as an issue. Additionally, he argues that the records are irrelevant to any issue in this case. Neither argument is persuasive.

We note that the law is by no means settled in this area. Some states' statutes expressly provide for a waiver when the privilege holder places his physical or mental condition at issue. (See San Francisco v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1951), 37 Cal.2d 227, 231 P.2d 26; Davidge v. Davidge (1984), 451 So.2d 1051; Werner v. Kliewer (1985), 238 Kan. 289, 710 P.2d 1250; Piller v. Kovarsky (1984), 194 N.J.Super. 392, 476 A.2d 1279; Wimberly Resorts Property, Inc. v. Pfeuffer (1985), 691 S.W.2d 27; Portsmouth v. Cilumbrello (1963), 204 Va. 11, 129 S.E.2d 31.) Other states reach the same result by finding an implied waiver in this situation. (See Bond v. District Court of County of Denver (1984), 682 P.2d 33; Mathis v. Hilderbrand (1966), 416 P.2d 8; McNutt v. Keet (1968), 432 S.W.2d 597.) Still other jurisdictions have held that the filing of a pleading does not constitute a waiver of privilege as to a physical or mental condition described in the pleading. See Wilson v. Bonner (1983), 166 Ga.App. 9, 303 S.E.2d 134; Lewkow v. Gracie Square Hospital (1982), 114 Misc.2d 732, 452 N.Y.S.2d 290; Nesse v. Nesse (1968), 1 N.C.App. 426, 161 S.E.2d 841.

We believe that plaintiff placed his physiological and biological condition at the time of the accident into issue and made discoverable all information relating to that condition. To prevail in a strict liability action, plaintiff must show not only some defect in the product or design, but also that the condition of the product proximately caused the...