Yow v. Pittman
| Decision Date | 03 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 313,313 |
| Citation | 84 S.E.2d 297,241 N.C. 69 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mrs. Ruth YOW v. Dave Edward PITTMAN, Jr., and William D. Gaston. |
Mary Gaither Whitener, Louis A. Whitener, Hickory, for plaintiff, appellee.
James C. Smathers, Hickory, for defendant William D. Gaston, appellant.
The defendants applied for an order of court permitting them to take, and requiring Dr. Brenizer to submit to the taking of, a deposition 'pertaining to his examination, medical history secured by him, his diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff, * * *.' Such a deposition would require the physician to disclose not only his clinical findings, diagnosis and treatment, but 'the history secured by him' from the plaintiff--information of a very confidental nature.
The defendants do not proceed under the deposition statute, G.S. § 8-71, broad as its provisions are: 'Any party in a civil action or special proceeding, upon giving notice to the adverse party or his attorney as provided by law, may take the depositions of persons whose evidence he may desire to use, without any special order therefor, unless the witness shall be beyond the limits of the United States.' This statute does not contemplate the taking of deposition of a person disqualified to give evidence in the case. It confers no right to investigate or inquire into matters which the court could not investigate and inquire into in the actual trial. The deposition statute, therefore, must be considered in connection with G.S. § 8-53, which provides: 'Communications between physician and patient.--No person, duly authorized to practice physic or surgery, shall be required to disclose any information which he may have acquired in attending a patient in a professional character, and which information was necessary to enable him to prescribe for such patient as a physician, or to do any act for him as a surgeon: Provided, that the presiding judge of a superior court may compel such disclosure, if in his opinion the same is necessary to a proper administration of justice.' (Emphasis added.)
One of the objects of this statute is to encourage full and frank disclosure to the doctor. The law protects the patient's secrets and makes it the duty of the doctor to keep them, a duty he cannot waive. The veil of secrecy can be drawn aside only by the patient or by 'the presiding judge of a superior court', and by him only when the ends of justice require it.
In construing C.S. § 1798,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silvers v. Mastercraft Fabrics, L.L.C., No. COA05-895 (N.C. App. 6/6/2006)
...[physician-patient] privilege have been discussed and decided often by this Court. . . . In all of our decisions except Yow v. Pittman [241 N.C. 69, 84 S.E.2d 297 (1954)], the questions presented related to rulings made during the progress of the trial by the presiding superior court judge.......
-
Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...treatment. Brittain v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 254 N.C. 697, 120 S.E.2d 72; Capps v. Lynch, 253 N.C. 18, 116 S.E.2d 137; Yow v. Pittman, 241 N.C. 69, 84 S.E.2d 297; Creech v. Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World, 211 N.C. 658, 191 S.E. 840; Sawyer v. Weskett, 201 N.C. 500, 160 S.E. 575; Met......
-
Capps v. Lynch, 34
...his opinion, it is necessary to a proper administration of justice and he so finds and enters such finding on the record. Yow v. Pittman, 241 N.C. 69, 84 S.E.2d 297; Sawyer v. Weskett, 201 N.C. 500, 160 S.E. 575; State v. Newsome, 195 N.C. 552, 143 S.E. 187; Metropolitan Insurance Co. v. Bo......
-
Albemarle Mental Health Center, In re
...v. Gustafson, 272 N.C. 452, 158 S.E.2d 619 (1968); Lockwood v. McCaskill, 261 N.C. 754, 136 S.E.2d 67 (1964); and Yow v. Pittman, 241 N.C. 69, 84 S.E.2d 297 (1954). Those cases held that a superior court judge, prior to trial in a civil action, had no authority to compel a physician to subm......