New York City Council v. Goldwater
Decision Date | 26 November 1940 |
Citation | 31 N.E.2d 31,284 N.Y. 296 |
Parties | NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL v. GOLDWATER, et al. In re LINCOLN HOSPITAL, BRONX. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Proceeding in the matter of the investigation by the Special Committee designated by the City Council of the City of New York to inquire into the charges by the Lincoln Hospital Alumni Association in regard to the management of Lincoln Hospital, Bronx, N. Y., wherein a special committee filed a application to direct Sigismund S. Goldwater, Commissioner of Hospitals of the City of New York, and Rudolf Rapp, Medical Superintendent of Lincoln Hospital, to show cause why a warrant should not issue for their commitment to jail until they should produce books, papers and records, specified in subpoenas served upon them. From a unanimous order of the Appellate Division, First Department, 259 App.Div. 883, 20 N.Y.S.2d 717, which affirmed an order of the Special Term, 174 Misc. 389, 20 N.Y.S.2d 712, and in which appeal was denied in 259 App.Div. 1002, 21 N.Y.S.2d 395, defendants appeal.
Reversed and application denied.
FINCH and CONWAY, JJ., dissenting. William C. Chanler, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Seymour Quel and Oscar L. Tucker, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Thomas H. McManus, of New York City, for respondent.
A special committee, appointed by the City Council of the City of New York in accordance with section 43 of the Charter of the city (effective January 1, 1938) to investigate charges of negligence and maladministration in the treatment of patients at Lincoln Hospital, has issued and served subpoenas duces tecum addressed to the Commissioner of Hospitals of the City of New York and to the Medical Superintendent of Lincoln Hospital which required the production of specified records of the hospital, including: ‘All case records, reports, charts, diagnoses, X-rays and other records relating to the following patients,’ etc. The Corporation Counsel advised the Commissioner of Hospitals and subsequently confirmed the advice by letter that The Commissioner appeared before the committee and produced some of the records called for by the subpoenas, but refused to produce any case cards or records which would disclose ‘confidential information relating to the diagnosis and treatment of patients.’ Upon the application of the Special Councilmanic Committee an order was made by the Supreme Court directing the persons named in the subpoenas ‘to produce before said Committee * * * all the books, papers, records, etc., mentioned and described in the respective subpoenas duces tecum.’
The Legislature has commanded that: ‘A person duly authorized to practice physic or surgery, or a professional or registered nurse, shall not be allowed to disclose any information which he acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity.’ Civil Practice Act, s 352. The petitioner claims, and the courts below have held, that because the command is contained in the Civil Practice Act it prohibits disclosure of such information only as evidence in an action or special proceeding brought in a court of record, and that a court may compel a physician to disclose to a committee of the Council of the city information which the physician is forbidden to divulge to a court of justice.
This court has said that: Buffalo Loan, Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. Knights Templar & Masonic Mut. Aid Ass'n, 126 N.Y. 450, at page 455,27 N.E. 942, at page 943,22 Am.St.Rep. 839.
Though at common law a physician, unlike a member of the bar, might be compelled to divulge as a witness information acquired by him under the seal of professional confidence, yet in the Civil Practice Act the privilege and duty of a clergyman to refuse to disclose a confession (s 351), the privilege and duty of a physician to refuse to disclose information acquired in attending a patient in order to enable him to treat the patient (s 352), and the privilege and duty of an attorney to refuse to disclose confidential communications from a client (s 353), are accorded the same statutory recognition, sanction and protection. All three sections apply to ‘any examination of a person as a witness unless the provisions thereof are expressly waived upon the trial or examination by the person confessing, the patient or the client.’ (s 354.)
Doubtless, as the court pointed out in Buffalo Loan, Trust & Cafe Deposit Co. v. Knights Templar & Masonic Mut. Aid Ass'n, 126 N.Y. 450, 454,27 N.E. 942, 943,22 Am.St.Rep. 839, ‘the primary purpose of the section was to declare the rule governing the examination of a physician as a witness in judicial proceedings.’ (Italics are new.) All the suctions to which we have referred are part of article 33 of the Civil Practice Act, which is entitled ‘Evidence,’ and the term ‘evidence’ is applied ordinarily to proof received in judicial proceedings. Nevertheless, the statute in terms to ‘any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Preston
...In re Warrington, 303 N.Y. 129, 100 N.E.2d 170. It is applicable to legislative investigations. New York City Council v. Goldwater, 284 N.Y. 296, 31 N.E.2d 31, 133 A.L.R. 728. It is applicable to subpoenas and testimony before the Grand Jury. In re Grand Jury of Kings County, 286 App.Div. 2......
-
Doe v. Roe
...the Court, 181 A.2d at 349 states that despite the absence of a common law physician-patient privilege (cf. Matter of New York City Council v. Goldwater, 284 N.Y. 296, 31 N.E.2d 31; Buffalo Loan, Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Knights Templar and Masonic Mutual Aid Association, 126 N.Y. 450, 4......
-
Tucson Medical Center Inc. v. Rowles
...by statute from disclosing such information, A.R.S. § 36--404(2).4 Similar conclusion was reached in New York City Council v. Goldwater, 284 N.Y. 296, 31 N.E.2d 31 (1940) where a special committee was designated by the city council of New York City to investigate charges regarding mismanage......
-
Prink v. Rockefeller Center, Inc.
...& Surgeons, § 119), cannot constitute a waiver making an otherwise privileged statement admissible (see Matter of City Council of City of N. Y. v. Goldwater, 284 N.Y. 296, 31 N.E.2d 31; Davis v. Supreme Lodge, Knights of Honor, 165 N.Y. 159, 58 N.E. 891, Supra; People v. Harris, 39 Misc.2d ......