Morris v. Consolidation Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 18 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 22034,22035,s. 22034 |
| Citation | 191 W.Va. 426,446 S.E.2d 648 |
| Parties | Dale F. MORRIS, Plaintiff Below, v. CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants Below. and Dale F. MORRIS, Plaintiff Below, v. CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants Below. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "A fiduciary relationship exists between a physician and a patient." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Kitzmiller v. Henning, 190 W.Va. 142, 437 S.E.2d 452 (1993).
2. Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Kitzmiller v. Henning, 190 W.Va. 142, 437 S.E.2d 452 (1993).
3. A fiduciary relationship exists between a treating physician and a claimant in a workers' compensation proceeding. This fiduciary relationship prohibits oral ex parte communication which involves providing confidential information and any other ex parte communication which involves providing confidential information which is not authorized under the statutes or procedural rules governing a workers' compensation claim between the treating physician and the adversarial party. When a claimant files a workers' compensation claim, he does consent to the release of written medical reports to the adversarial party pursuant to W.Va. Code, 23-4-7 [1991]; however, this consent does not waive the existing fiduciary relationship thereby permitting ex parte oral communication between the physician and the adversarial party which involves providing confidential information unrelated to the written medical reports authorized by W.Va. Code, 23-4-7 [1991].
4. A patient does have a cause of action for the breach of the duty of confidentiality against a treating physician who wrongfully divulges confidential information.
5. A patient does have a cause of action against a third party who induces a physician to breach his fiduciary relationship if the following elements are met: (1) the third party knew or reasonably should have known of the existence of the physician-patient relationship; (2) the third party intended to induce the physician to wrongfully disclose information about the patient or the third party should have reasonably anticipated that his actions would induce the physician to wrongfully disclose such information; (3) the third party did not reasonably believe that the physician could disclose that information to the third party without violating the duty of confidentiality that the physician owed the patient; and (4) the physician wrongfully divulges confidential information to the third party.
Brent E. Beveridge, Fairmont, for plaintiff Dale F. Morris.
Robert M. Steptoe, Jr., Larry J. Rector, Steptoe & Johnson, Clarksburg, Robert M. Vukas, CONSOL, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, for defendant Consolidation Coal Co.
Dino S. Colombo, Jacobson, Maynard, Tuschman & Kalur, Morgantown, for defendant Michael R. Schwarzenberg, M.D.
The Circuit Court of Monongalia County certified six questions to this Court by an order dated July 14, 1993, which concern whether an opposing party may interview the injured party's physician ex parte in a workers' compensation action. The plaintiff below is Dale Morris. The defendants below are Consolidation Coal Company and Michael R. Schwarzenberg, M.D.
On July 10, 1991, Mr. Morris claims he was injured while working for Consolidation Coal Company when a board fell off a supply car and hit him on the left leg. He also claims that he sprained his back at work on the same date when a wheelbarrow he was pushing turned over. Mr. Morris states that he did not report to work on July 11 and 12, 1991, due to his injuries. Mr. Morris was examined by his physician. Below is a chronological list of events which led to this case:
July 12, 1991: Dr. Schwarzenberg noted that Mr. Morris had a shoulder/cervical strain and a contusion on his leg. The doctor told Mr. Morris to stay home from work until he returned to the doctor's office on July 16, 1991.
July 16, 1991: Mr. Morris returned to Dr. Schwarzenberg, who noted the same symptoms. The doctor ordered that Mr. Morris remain off work until he returned to the doctor's office on July 23, 1991. Mr. Morris canceled the July 23, 1991, appointment and rescheduled it to July 26, 1991.
July 26, 1991: Dr. Schwarzenberg noted the same symptoms; however, he indicated that Mr. Morris could return to work on July 29, 1991.
July 31, 1991: Mr. Morris returned to Dr. Schwarzenberg's office complaining of pain in his left calf which prevented him from working. Dr. Schwarzenberg ordered him to stay home from work.
August 12, 20, 30, and September 6, 1991: On each of these dates Dr. Schwarzenberg ordered the plaintiff to stay home from work after noting the same symptoms. On August 20, 1991, Dr. Schwarzenberg gave Mr. Morris a WC-123 form (a workers' compensation application form) with the physician's portion completed. Mr. Morris completed the WC-123 form and signed it on August 20, 1991. The WC-123 form was eventually filed with Workers' Compensation.
On September 16, 1991, Mark Hrutkay, a representative of Consolidation Coal Company, went to Dr. Schwarzenberg's office and asked to speak to the doctor about Mr. Morris. On that day, Mr. Hrutkay showed Dr. Schwarzenberg pictures and a video of Mr. Morris digging a trench for a water line on July 13, 15, and 16, 1991. Mr. Morris was not informed of the meeting until after it occurred. However, Mr. Morris has admitted that the photographs and video accurately depict him doing the work.
Dr. Schwarzenberg states that he did not provide any medical information concerning Mr. Morris to Mr. Hrutkay, nor did he or Mr. Hrutkay discuss Mr. Morris' medical condition. Dr. Schwarzenberg states that he simply looked at the pictures and video and when asked what he thought, told Mr. Hrutkay that he was unable to certify Mr. Morris as disabled.
On that same day, Dr. Schwarzenberg wrote a letter to Workers' Compensation stating that he was unable to certify any disability for Mr. Morris from the July 10, 1991, injury based on the photographs and video. On September 23, 1991, Workers' Compensation sent a letter to Mr. Morris rejecting his application for temporary total disability (TTD) benefits based on a finding that Mr. Morris had not been injured in the course of employment.
Consolidation Coal Company suspended Mr. Morris from work on September 17, 1991. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement an arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator upheld Consolidation Coal Company's decision to discharge Mr. Morris from work. Additionally, Mr. Morris attempted to obtain unemployment benefits; however, his application was rejected upon a finding of gross misconduct.
Eventually, Mr. Morris filed a civil action against Dr. Schwarzenberg for breaching his confidential physician-patient relationship by disclosing information to Consolidation Coal Company, and against Consolidation Coal Company for its willful, intentional and malicious interference with his "confidential relationship" with his treating physician. The circuit court certified six questions to this Court after it denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment.
This Court will address the issues raised by the certified questions differently than the circuit court framed the questions. 1 Therefore the first issue is whether West Virginia recognizes a physician-patient privilege when an employee/patient executes a workers' compensation WC-123 medical release and files for workers' compensation benefits. In addition, if this Court does recognize a physician-patient privilege in workers' compensation cases, what is the scope of that privilege?
In syllabus point 1 of State ex rel. Kitzmiller v. Henning, 190 W.Va. 142, 437 S.E.2d 452 (1993), this Court stated that "[a] fiduciary relationship exists between a physician and a patient." Additionally, we outlined the parameters of the fiduciary relationship between a physician and a patient in syllabus point 2 of Kitzmiller:
When a patient files a lawsuit in malpractice, he impliedly consents to a physician's releasing medical information related to the condition he has placed at issue. The patient's implicit consent, however, is obviously and necessarily limited; he does not consent, simply by filing suit, to his physician's discussing his medical confidences with third parties outside court-authorized discovery methods, nor does he consent to his physician's discussing the patient's confidences in an ex parte conference with the patient's adversary.
In Kitzmiller this Court points out that "[t]he danger of ex parte interviews of a doctor by adverse counsel is that the patient's lawyer is afforded no opportunity to object to the disclosure of medical information that is remote, irrelevant, or compromising in a context other than the lawsuit at hand." Id. at 145, 437 S.E.2d at 455. However, Kitzmiller involved a medical malpractice case and did not involve a workers' compensation proceeding.
The defendants acknowledge that West Virginia has recognized a fiduciary relationship between a physician and patient. However, they argue that this relationship should not prohibit ex parte communication between the employer and the claimant's physician in a workers' compensation claim. They point out that there are significant differences between a civil proceeding and a workers' compensation proceeding. For instance, a workers'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Statee., Inc. v. Hammer ex rel. Situated
...of confidentiality against a treating physician who wrongfully divulges confidential information." Syl. pt. 4, Morris v. Consolidation Coal Co. , 191 W. Va. 426, 446 S.E.2d 648 (1994) (emphasis added). Because Morris was addressing certified questions, and the facts of the case were undevel......
-
Castillo-Plaza v. Green
...their duty to their patients, jeopardize their licenses, and expose themselves to personal liability, see Morris v. Consolidation Coal Co., 191 W.Va. 426, 446 S.E.2d 648 (1994), and cases collected at 16 Med.Liab.Rep. (MG-H) 299-301 (Dec.1994), by violating the privilege--all supposedly out......
-
Perrine v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours And Co.
...morals and general welfare of the people for whom government-with us-is factually established. Morris v. Consolidation Coal Co., 191 W.Va. 426, 433 n. 5, 446 S.E.2d 648, 655 n. 5 (1994) Cordle v. General Hugh Mercer Corp., 174 W.Va. at 325, 325 S.E.2d at 114) (additional citation omitted). ......
-
Mitchell v. Broadnax
...of law which the court must decide in light of the particular circumstances of each case." ` " Morris v. Consolidation Coal Co., 191 W.Va. 426, 433 n. 5, 446 S.E.2d 648, 655 n. 5 (1994) (quoting Cordle v. General Hugh Mercer Corp., 174 W.Va. at 325, 325 S.E.2d at 114 (quoting Allen v. Comme......
-
The strict Ohio Supreme Court decision in Biddle: third party law firm held liable for inducing disclosure of medical information.
...v. McWilliams, 549 A.2d 950 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988); Alexander v. Knight, 177 A.2d 142 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1962); Moms v. Consolidated Coal, 446 S.E.2d 648 (W. Va. 1994); see also text accompanying footnotes 134-63 (14) Hammonds, 243 F. Supp. at 793 (holding a third party liable for the inducemen......