State ex rel. Benoit v. Randall, 53632
| Decision Date | 09 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 53632,53632 |
| Citation | 431 S.W.2d 107 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, ex rel. Hector W. BENOIT, Jr., M.D., Joseph C. Williams, Jr., M.D., William D. Hoadley, M.D., Relators, v. Honorable Alvin C. RANDALL, Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Harry P. Thomson, Jr., R. Lawrence Ward, William H. Sanders, Larry L. McMullen, Kansas City, for plaintiff Joseph C. Williams, Jr., M.D., Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Lombardi & Weary, Kansas City, of counsel.
Darrell L. Havener, Kansas City, for plaintiff Hector W. Benoit, Jr., M.D., Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, Kansas City, of counsel.
Roy F. Carter, Forest W. Hanna, Kansas City, for plaintiff William D. Hoadley, M.D., Sprinkle, Carter, Sprinkle, Larson & Hanna, Kansas City, of counsel.
Lem T. Jones, Jr., Russell S. Jones, Kansas City, for intervenor and/or amicus curiae, Research Hospital and Medical Center.
George L. Gisler, Kansas City, Samuel Weisbard, Chicago, Ill., for respondent, Gisler & Howell, Kansas City, McDermott, Will & Emery, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
David R. Hardy, John T. Martin, Kansas City, for amicus curiae Ralph Perry and others, Shook, Hardy, Ottman, Mitchell & Bacon, Kansas City, of counsel.
This is an original action in prohibition.
Dr. Terry E. Lilly, Jr., filed a suit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, against Drs. Benoit, Williams and Hoadley. He contends in Count I of his petition that Benoit, Williams and Hoadley conspired to reduce his privileges on the staff of Research Hospital and Medical Center. See Cowan v. Gibson, Mo.Sup., 392 S.W.2d 307. He alleges, in part, that they maliciously 'discriminated against plaintiff by applying a different standard of medical and surgical practice to the care of his patients than was applied to the care of patients by other members of the staff.' In Count II he asks damages for slander.
Dr. Lilly, in the course of the proceeding in the trial court, filed a motion seeking an order directing the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to the hospital requiring production of 'all official hospital charts, including x-ray pictures, of all patients admitted to Research Hospital in the years 1963, 1964, and 1965 under the care of every member of the staff of Research with privileges to practice General Surgery during said years.'
In response to this motion, respondent Judge Randall proposes to enter an order compelling, under designated conditions, the production of records of fifty-five doctors. This proposed order reads, in part, as follows:
'It is hereby ordered by the court that the said motions of each of the defendants requesting the court to refuse to issue a subpoena duces tecum are hereby overruled and the motion of the plaintiff for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and the motions of defendants and of Research Hospital for protective orders are sustained as herein stated. The Court hereby authorizes, orders and directs Carol Marvin and/or Carol G. Colston, Notaries Public, or any notary public to issue and serve or cause to be served a subpoena duces tecum in the above cause directed to the Medical Records Librarian of Research Hospital, Meyer Boulevard and Prospect Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, requiring said witness to produce subject to the conditions specified herein at the taking of her deposition in this case on behalf of plaintiff Terry E. Lilly, Jr., on the _ _ day of _ _, 1967:
'All records of Research Hospital of patients of the defendants compiled during the year 1964 and all records of Research Hospital of patients compiled during the year 1964 wherein the patients were patients of the following designated members of the staff of Research Hospital:
(Naming fifty-five doctors)
provided, however, that production of said patient charts at said deposition shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations:
name and identity.
Relators Benoit, Williams, and Hoadley applied for prohibition and we ordered the issuance of our preliminary rule. Briefs of the parties and amicus curiae briefs of the hospital and of thirty-one doctors have been filed. We conclude that the preliminary rule should be made absolute because the proposed order of the trial court would cause a violation of the physician-patient privilege.
The physician-patient privilege is provided for in § 491.060, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., which reads in part as follows:
'The following persons shall be incompetent to testify:
* * *
* * *
'(5) A physician or surgeon, concerning any information which he may have acquired from any patient while attending him in a professional character, and which information was necessary to enable him to prescribe for such patient as a physician, or do any act for him as a surgeon.'
We recognize that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucson Medical Center Inc. v. Rowles
...jurisdictions are similar to A.R.S. § 12--2235 in that they contain no specific reference to hospital records. In State ex rel. Benoit v. Randall, 431 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.1968), the Supreme Court of Missouri reasoned as 'This is undoubtedly the rule as announced by all the authorities, and, that......
-
Smith v. State
...for the welfare and health of the patients admitted to the hospital. This was at least recognized in Benoit, (State ex rel. Benoit v. Randall, Mo., 431 S.W.2d 107) supra: "Hospital records are seen and copied by staff members and employees. The element of strict secrecy cannot be present un......
-
Terre Haute Regional Hosp., Inc. v. Trueblood
...Ct. (1977), 194 Colo. 98, 570 P.2d 243; Amisub (Northridge Hosp.), Inc. v. Kemper (1989), Fla.App., 543 So.2d 470; State ex rel Benoit v. Randall (1968), Mo., 431 S.W.2d 107; Ventimiglia v. Moffitt (1986), Fla.App., 502 So.2d 14; Osterman v. Ehrenworth (1969), 106 N.J.Super. 515, 256 A.2d 1......
-
State v. Evans
...State v. Beatty, 770 S.W.2d 387, 391 (Mo.App.1989), and to hospital records of the sort presented here, State ex rel. Benoit v. Randall, 431 S.W.2d 107, 109 (Mo.1968), defendant's reliance upon the physician-patient privilege is nevertheless Though the facts present a novel situation, it ap......