St. Luke Inst., Inc. v. Jones

• Citation: 216 A.3d 49,242 Md.App. 617
• Decision Date: 12 September 2019
• Docket Number: No. 3331, Sept. Term, 2018,3331, Sept. Term, 2018
• Parties: ST. LUKE INSTITUTE, INC. v. Andre JONES
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

242 Md.App. 617

216 A.3d 49

ST. LUKE INSTITUTE, INC.

v.Andre JONES

No. 3331, Sept. Term, 2018

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

September 12, 2019

Argued by Ellis J. Koch of Rockville, MD, for Appellant.

Argued by Jerry Kristal (Weitz & Luxenberg, PC, Cherry Hill, NJ and Jonathan Ruckdeschel, Z. Stephen Horvat, Jacqueline G. Badders, Ruckdeschel Law Firm, LLC, Ellicott City, MD), on the brief, for Appellee.

Panel: Meredith, Shaw Geter, James P. Salmon (Retired Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Shaw Geter, J.

This appeal arises from an order of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County requiring that St. Luke Institute, Inc., appellant, produce the mental health records of Brother Edward Anthony Holmes to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In 2017, Andre Jones, appellee, brought a civil lawsuit, currently pending in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, naming the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston and the Congregation of Sacred Hearts as defendants. The suit alleged that Jones, as a minor, was repeatedly sexually assaulted and sexually abused by Brother Holmes between 1978 and 1982. The allegations include causes of action for negligent hiring and negligent supervision of Holmes. During discovery in that lawsuit, it became known that Brother Holmes underwent psychotherapy at St. Luke Institute in the early 1990's.

Jones filed with the circuit court a motion requesting the court order St. Luke Institute to produce Brother Holmes' mental health records. St. Luke Institute filed a motion in opposition. The circuit court issued a memorandum opinion and order directing St. Luke Institute to transfer Brother Holmes' entire mental health record under seal to the Clerk of the Massachusetts Superior Court.

St. Luke Institute then moved the circuit court to reconsider its ruling and vacate the order or, alternatively, to stay the order pending appeal. The circuit court denied St. Luke Institute's motion. St. Luke Institute noted this appeal, and presents the following questions for our review, which we have rephrased and consolidated for convenience:¹

1) Did the circuit court err or abuse its discretion in ordering St. Luke Institute to produce Brother Holmes' mental health records?

2) Did the circuit court err in ordering Brother Holmes' entire mental health record be filed under seal to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

3) How does a Maryland trial court determine what confidential information is to be released when requested in discovery?

BACKGROUND

A. The Underlying Massachusetts Action.

In 2017, Andre Jones filed a civil lawsuit (the "Massachusetts Action"), as lead plaintiff, in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Trial Division (the "Massachusetts Court"), naming as defendants the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston and the Congregation of Sacred Hearts.² The Massachusetts Action alleges, in part, that Jones, as a minor, after having been removed from the custody of his parents and placed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Nazareth Child Care Center in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts ("Nazareth") and while a Nazareth resident, suffered repeated sexual assault and abuse by Brother Holmes, a Nazareth counselor.³ The complaint included causes of action for negligent hiring and negligent supervision of Holmes.

Documents produced in discovery by the Congregation of Sacred Hearts noted that Brother Holmes had underwent psychotherapy at St. Luke Institute, Inc. ("SLI") in the early 1990's. 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 education services for catholic clergy." According to the documents produced by the Congregation of Sacred Hearts, two psychiatric evaluation reports on Brother Holmes were written by SLI employees, respectively 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, "There are no reported signs that [Brother Holmes] has been sexually inappropriate. However, we would caution [Holmes] and his order: there are many signs of risk that should not be lightly dismissed." The report also noted that Holmes "[h]a[d] not worked through his experience of being molested as a child."

After the existence of the 1991 and 1993 reports became known to Jones, he requested that the reports and associated records be produced by the named parties. Jones was informed that the mental health evaluation reports had been destroyed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston and the Congregation of Sacred Hearts in the early 2000's.

In 2006, Brother Holmes' abuse of minors at Nazareth became public knowledge. He was arrested, charged, and pled guilty to seventeen counts involving sexual assault of minors while they were residents at Nazareth. On April 6, 2011, Brother Holmes died.

B. The Action in the Circuit Court.

Jones, pursuant to a Letter of Rogatory of the Massachusetts Court, sought a subpoena from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County requesting SLI produce Brother Holmes' mental health records. SLI opposed the motion, arguing that the subpoena was improperly before the court pursuant to Md. Code (2000, 2009 Repl. Vol.), Health General ("H.G."), § 4-307.

Jones then filed with the circuit court a request for an Order to Produce Mental Health Records. SLI filed a motion opposing the request, arguing that the circuit court would need to examine the pleadings in the Massachusetts Action to properly determine whether Brother Holmes' mental condition had been raised and whether such evidence was relevant.

In a memorandum opinion, dated January 23, 2019, the circuit court wrote:

This court does not believe that two separate courts are required to review what are likely extensive pleadings in order to adjudicate this discovery request. To do so is contrary to the interests of judicial economy, especially as the [Massachusetts Court] can and will be the ultimate gatekeeper of evidence at trial.

Furthermore, given the evidence that has already been provided to this court, evidence of whether Brother Holmes' propensity towards sexual assault was known to his employer is likely within the records sought. In balancing the factors considered in determining whether a patient's right to privacy in their health records could be overcome, there is a compelling state interest in aiding [Jones] to obtain the requested records. This case is one of the predatory sexual assault of minors, and there are multiple alleged victims, at least one of whom was sent to this institution by the state itself. [Jones] in this instant case was taken from the custody of his parents by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and place[d] in the care of Brother Holmes. Lastly, the records requested do not at this time injure or embarrass Brother Holmes, who is now deceased and who previously admitted to rape and sexual assault of minors. There are thus compelling factors towards ordering the release of this requested information, with the [Massachusetts Court] as gatekeeper and safeguard for [SLI].

In an order accompanying the memorandum opinion, the circuit court directed SLI to produce, under seal, Brother Holmes' mental health records to the Clerk of the Massachusetts Court.

SLI filed with the circuit court a motion for reconsideration and request to vacate the January 23, 2019 order or, alternatively, to stay the order pending appeal. The circuit court denied the motion in total. SLI timely appealed the circuit court's decision and filed with this Court a motion to stay the production of the mental health records pending the appeal, which this Court granted.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Ordinarily we review a trial court's ruling on a motion to quash a subpoena for an abuse of discretion. See Doe v. Maryland Bd. of Social Workers , 154 Md. App. 520, 527–28, 840 A.2d 744, 749 (2004) ; WBAL-TV Div., Hearst Corp. v. Stat e, 300 Md. 233, 246, 477 A.2d 776, 783 (1984) (holding no abuse of discretion in denial of TV station's motion, based on a qualified First Amendment privilege, to quash summons by the State to produce unbroadcast portions of a videotaped interview with a criminal defendant for possible use at trial). Generally, an abuse of discretion occurs where "no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the [trial] court." Metheny v. State , 359 Md. 576, 604, 755 A.2d 1088, 1104 (2000) (internal quotations omitted) (brackets in original). However, SLI contends the circuit erred as a matter of law by releasing Brother Holmes' entire medical health record to the Massachusetts Court rather than limiting its release to the portion of the records deemed relevant to the Massachusetts Action as required by H.G. §§ 4-301 et seq. , the Confidentiality of Medical Records Act (the "Act"). And, when the ruling "involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law," as it did here, "we must determine whether the trial court's conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review." Johnson v. Francis , 239 Md. App. 530, 542, 197 A.3d 582, 590 (2018) (internal quotations omitted).

DISCUSSION

I. Did the circuit court err or abuse its discretion in ordering SLI to produce Brother Holmes' mental health records?

Pursuant to the Act, the medical records of a patient are confidential and, ordinarily, a health care provider may not disclose a patient's record to a third party without the patient's permission. H.G. § 4-302(a).

However, "[a] health care provider shall disclose a medical record without the authorization of a person in interest ... in accordance with ... a court order that appears on its face to have been issued on lawful authority." H.G. § 4-306(a) and (b)(6). Thus, the circuit court had the authority to order SLI to produce Brother Holmes' confidential mental health records.⁴

We now consider whether the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering...