Kneisel v. QPH, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
2 N.Y.S.3d 195, 124 A.D.3d 729 (2015)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The physician-patient privilege prohibits the disclosure of a nonparty patient-witness's identity if the context of their location would inherently reveal their diagnosis or treatment. Additionally, a party asserting a statutory privilege over documents bears the burden of demonstrating that the privilege applies.

Facts:

A decedent was a patient at Holliswood Hospital.
The decedent was housed in a specialized unit designated for patients between 12 and 15 years old suffering from certain psychiatric disorders.
While in this unit, the decedent had a roommate.
The plaintiff, representing the decedent's estate, sought the identity of the decedent's roommate as a potential witness to events leading to the lawsuit.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff filed an action for medical malpractice, negligence, and wrongful death against QPH, Inc. (Holliswood Hospital) and Liberty Behavioral Management Corp. in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, a New York trial court.
During discovery, the plaintiff served a notice for discovery and inspection, which included demands for the identity of the decedent's roommate (item no. 8) and other documents (item nos. 4, 5, 7).
The hospital defendants moved in the trial court for a protective order to prevent disclosure of these items, asserting privilege.
The plaintiff filed a cross-motion to compel the hospital defendants to comply with the discovery demands.
The trial court granted the hospital defendants' motion for a protective order for all disputed items and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to compel.
The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, concerning the rulings on items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

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 the physician-patient privilege under CPLR 4504(a) prohibit discovery of a nonparty patient-witness's identity when their location in a specialized hospital unit would, by simple deduction, reveal their medical diagnosis?

Opinions:

Majority - Dillon, J.P.

Yes. The physician-patient privilege prohibits the disclosure of a nonparty patient-witness's identity when their location would inherently reveal their medical status. While the name and address of a nonparty patient-witness are generally discoverable, an exception applies when compliance with the demand is not possible without also disclosing privileged information concerning diagnosis and treatment. Here, the decedent's roommate was located in a specialized psychiatric unit for adolescents. Therefore, revealing the roommate's identity would, by simple deduction, also reveal their protected medical status as a patient receiving psychiatric treatment, which is prohibited by CPLR 4504(a). However, regarding other documents requested (items 4, 5, and 7), the hospital defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the quality-assurance privilege under Education Law § 6527(3) applied. They merely asserted the privilege without making any showing as to why it attached, so those documents must be produced.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the scope of the physician-patient privilege in discovery, establishing that the context of a patient's location can be sufficient to protect their identity from disclosure. It sets a precedent that the privilege is not limited to explicit medical records but extends to identifying information that would implicitly reveal a diagnosis. The ruling reinforces that a patient's mere presence in a specialized treatment facility (e.g., for psychiatric care, substance abuse, or oncology) is privileged information. The decision also serves as a reminder that parties asserting privilege cannot make conclusory claims but must affirmatively demonstrate that the statutory requirements for the privilege have been met.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Kneisel v. QPH, Inc. (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"