Saint Luke Inst., Inc. v. Jones
| Decision Date | 20 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 62,62 |
| Parties | SAINT LUKE INSTITUTE, INC. v. ANDRE JONES |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Discovery of Mental Health Records Under the Maryland Confidentiality of Medical Records Act, Health General ("HG") §§ 4-301 Through 309 ("Confidentiality Act") - Where mental health records are requested by a private party litigant in a civil case in which the patient has not authorized disclosure, the Confidentiality Act, the Maryland discovery rules, and our case law establish the following process for disclosure. The party seeking discovery should file a motion seeking or compelling the disclosure and requesting a court order under HG § 4-307. The movant must establish a "need to inspect"—in other words, a reasonable possibility that review of the records would result in discovery of usable evidence. In considering whether the movant has a need for access to the records, the court should consider the nature of the underlying litigation, the relationship between the records and any claim or defense, and the likelihood that review of the records would result in the discovery of relevant information.
Once the movant makes a threshold proffer sufficient to enable the court to determine that there is a "need to inspect," the court should undertake an in camera review of the documents sought to be disclosed to ensure that the records sought are relevant, and to ensure that disclosure is limited to only those records that may be relevant. If the court determines that the records are relevant, it should enter an order under Maryland Rule 2-403(b) authorizing the disclosure with adequate provisions or restrictions to protect the patient's privacy interests as it determines are appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Such conditions or restrictions should include a provision prohibiting redisclosure and requiring the return of original records and the return or destruction of any copies made, at the conclusion of the litigation.
Health Care Provider's Standing to Raise Patient's Objections to Disclosure - Under the plain language of the Confidentiality Act, HG § 4-307(k)(6), where a litigant is seeking discovery of mental health records, the health care provider or custodian has standing to raise a patient's "constitutional right or other legal authority in opposition to disclosure."
Circuit Court for Prince George's County
Barbera, C.J. McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran, JJ.
Opinion by Booth, J.
In this case, we are asked to determine the legal standard to be applied under the Maryland Confidentiality of Medical Records Act, Maryland Code (2000, 2019 Repl. Vol.), Health General ("HG") §§ 4-301 through 309 ("Confidentiality Act"), when a private party in a civil case seeks discovery of a patient's mental health records where the patient has not authorized the disclosure. We are also asked to determine whether the custodian of the records has standing to raise the patient's privacy rights or other legal opposition to disclosure on the patient's behalf. These questions arise in the context of a civil case filed in Massachusetts in which the plaintiffs allege that they were sexually abused by a brother or member of a religious order while they were minor children residing in a children's group home that employed the brother. The Massachusetts plaintiffs filed a proceeding in Maryland seeking discovery of the brother's mental health records that they believe are in the custody of Saint Luke Institute, Inc. ("SLI"), a facility located in Maryland. After considering the plaintiffs' motion for a court order to produce the records and SLI's opposition to disclosure, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County entered an order directing that SLI produce the brother's mental health records under seal to a Massachusetts court. Prior to ordering the disclosure of the records, the circuit court did not review the pleadings in the Massachusetts case, nor did the court conduct an in camera review of the records. SLI appealed the order to the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
For the reasons more fully set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand this proceeding to the circuit court for that court toundertake an in camera review of the mental health records and to determine what portion of the records are relevant in accordance with its statutory obligation under HG § 4-307, and to enter an order transferring the portion of the records determined to be relevant under seal to the Massachusetts court for that court's determination as to what should be released to counsel.
This case arises from a discovery motion related to a civil lawsuit pending in the Massachusetts Superior Court involving four consolidated cases alleging negligent hiring and supervision of Brother Edward Anthony Holmes, who was a member of the Congregation of Sacred Hearts ("CSH"), and who is now deceased. In 2017, Petitioner, Andre Jones, the lead plaintiff, filed a lawsuit in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Trial Division in Suffolk County ("Massachusetts Court"), naming as defendants the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston and the CSH ("Massachusetts Action").1 Although the Massachusetts complaint is not included in the record of the proceedings in this case, according to proffers made by counsel for Mr. Jones, the suit alleges that Mr. Jones was sexually assaulted by Brother Holmes when he was a minor, while he was placed in hiscare at the Nazareth Child Care Center in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts ("Nazareth"). According to Mr. Jones, the complaint in the Massachusetts Action includes counts alleging negligent hiring and negligent supervision of Brother Holmes by the defendants.2
Mr. Jones asserts that documents produced by the defendant CSH in discovery in the Massachusetts Action noted that Brother Holmes underwent psychotherapy at SLI in the early 1990s. SLI, located in Maryland, is a "Catholic organization with 40 years of experience treating Catholic clergy" and "offers a full range of psychological screening, treatment and educational services for Catholic clergy." Mr. Jones alleges that, according to the documents produced by the CSH, two psychiatric evaluation reports on Brother Holmes were written by SLI employees, dated June 28, 1991 and November 8, 1993.
The produced documents highlighted and summarized a "caution" contained in the 1993 report generated by SLI, stating, The report also noted that Brother Holmes had "not worked through his experience of being molested as a child."
After Mr. Jones learned of the existence of the 1991 and 1993 reports, he requested that the reports and associated records be produced by the defendants in theMassachusetts Action. Mr. Jones was informed that the mental health evaluation reports had been destroyed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston and the CSH in the early 2000s.
Unable to obtain the mental health evaluation reports directly from the defendants, Mr. Jones and the other plaintiffs sought production of the records from SLI by filing a Motion for the Issuance of Letters of Rogatory and a Commission3 to Take the Deposition of a Non-Resident Witness Custodian of Records. The Massachusetts Court entered an order granting the motion and issued a Commission and Letters Rogatory.
The Letters Rogatory requests "as a matter of comity" that an appropriate Maryland Court "issue process to compel [t]he [c]ustodian of [r]ecords for St. Luke Institute . . . to appear" for a deposition in Maryland and to produce documents. The Letters Rogatory acknowledges that SLI is located out of state and is therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Court, and that its appearance "can be compelled only by process issued by the appropriate authority in the State of Maryland." The Letters Rogatory explained that "the production of documents and things for copying and inspection are left entirely to your Court's procedure." (Emphasis added). The LettersRogatory reflect that the documents to be produced are "all documents related to Brother Edward Anthony Holmes, including but not limited to, psychotherapy examinations/risk assessments that were conducted on June 28, 1991 and November 8, 1993 at St. Luke Institute."
After the Letters Rogatory was issued by the Massachusetts Court, Mr. Jones sought a subpoena from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County requesting that SLI produce Brother Holmes' mental health records. SLI filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that under HG § 4-307, mental health records may only be disclosed to a private party in litigation by a court order, not through a subpoena.
Apparently realizing the error in attempting to obtain the records by subpoena as opposed to a court order, Mr. Jones filed a cross-motion for a court order to produce the mental health records. In connection with the motion for a court order, counsel for Mr. Jones filed a memorandum in which counsel described the underlying Massachusetts Action, including the allegations of sexual abuse, and represented that the litigation included counts for negligent hiring and negligent supervision. In the memorandum, Mr. Jones alleged that he was sexually assaulted by Brother Holmes after being removed from the custody of his parents and placed at Nazareth. The memorandum stated that three other individuals had made similar allegations of sexual assault by Brother Holmes while the plaintiffs were residents of Nazareth, and that those cases had been consolidated with Mr. Jones' case in the Massachusetts Action. Mr. Jones described the discovery that had...
To continue reading
Request your trial