Davis v. Ross
602 F.Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y.1984), rev’d, 754 F.2d 80 (2d Cir.1985) (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a defamation action who claims damages for mental pain and anguish affirmatively places their mental condition at issue, thereby waiving the physician-patient privilege and making their psychiatric records relevant and discoverable.
Facts:
- Gail Davis was employed by Diana Ross.
- Ross terminated Davis's employment.
- Following the termination, Ross wrote and disseminated a letter stating, 'If I let an employee go, it is because their work or their personal habits are not acceptable to me. I do not recommend these people.'
- During the period she worked for Ross, Davis received treatment from a psychiatrist.
Procedural Posture:
- Gail Davis sued Diana Ross for defamation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The District Court issued a prior ruling in the case.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's prior ruling and remanded the case.
- Upon remand to the District Court, both Davis and Ross filed cross-motions to compel discovery from one another.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a defamation action, by claiming damages for 'mental pain and anguish,' waive the physician-patient privilege regarding her psychiatric treatment records, making them discoverable by the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Carter, J.
Yes, by claiming damages for mental pain and anguish, a plaintiff waives the physician-patient privilege for related psychiatric records. The court denied the plaintiff's motions to compel discovery of Ross's net worth, legal fee arrangements, and other employee complaints. Under New York law, a defendant's wealth is not discoverable until a jury returns a special verdict entitling the plaintiff to punitive damages. The specific amount of legal fees paid to a potential witness is not probative of bias, and discovery of other employee complaints is irrelevant to whether the plaintiff's own work habits were objectively unacceptable. However, the court granted the defendant's motion to compel discovery of the plaintiff's psychiatric records. When a plaintiff puts their mental condition in issue by suing for 'great mental pain and anguish,' the physician-patient privilege is waived. Even if damages can be presumed in a libel per se case under the Supreme Court's ruling in Dun & Bradstreet, the defendant must be permitted to rebut that presumption and challenge the amount of damages sought. Therefore, the plaintiff's psychiatric records are relevant to the issue of damages and are discoverable.
Analysis:
This opinion clarifies the scope of the physician-patient privilege waiver, establishing that a claim for emotional distress damages affirmatively places the plaintiff's mental health at issue and opens the door to discovery of related medical records. It prevents a plaintiff from using the privilege as both a sword to claim damages and a shield to block inquiry into the validity of that claim. The decision also provides a clear application of New York's rules limiting pre-trial discovery of a defendant's wealth in cases involving punitive damages. It demonstrates how courts balance the need for relevant evidence against privacy interests during the discovery phase.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. Ross