People v. Sergio
864 NYS2d 264, 21 Misc.3d 451 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The physician-patient privilege is not absolute and does not protect medical communications from disclosure where a statutory duty to report suspected child abuse exists, or where the common-law duty to protect third parties from a clear and present danger requires disclosure.
Facts:
- On April 6, 2007, emergency medical technician (EMT) Diane Easier responded to Laura Sergio's home, where Sergio was bleeding.
- When Easier asked Sergio if she was or had been pregnant, Sergio replied, 'No.'
- Sergio was transported to Lutheran Medical Center, where medical personnel determined that she had recently given birth.
- The hospital contacted the police, reporting they were treating a female who had apparently given birth but the baby was not with her.
- Police went to Sergio's home where her sister, Andrea Sergio, directed them to some bags in the back of the house.
- Inside a black plastic garbage bag, police found a newborn baby girl wrapped in a bloody towel on a cold night.
- The baby, who still had her umbilical cord attached, was transported to the hospital but showed no signs of life.
- An autopsy concluded the baby was born alive and the cause of death was 'asphyxia and hypothermia due to environmental exposure to cold temperature,' with the manner of death being homicide.
Procedural Posture:
- Laura Sergio was indicted by a grand jury on April 13, 2007, for charges including murder and manslaughter.
- A judge in the trial court initially inspected the grand jury minutes and, in an order dated July 25, 2007, found them legally sufficient.
- The defendant, on March 25, 2008, moved for a reinspection of the grand jury minutes, later arguing that privileged physician-patient communications were improperly used.
- On April 30, 2008, the prior judge granted the defense motion to reinspect the minutes to determine if the privilege was violated.
- The case was then reassigned to the current judge to decide the pending motions to dismiss the indictment based on the alleged violation of privilege and the legal insufficiency of the evidence.
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 use of a defendant's medical information and statements to healthcare providers, which indicate suspected child abuse and present a danger to a third party, violate the physician-patient privilege when used to obtain a search warrant and support a grand jury indictment?
Opinions:
Majority - Joel M. Goldberg, J.
No. The use of the defendant's medical information did not violate the physician-patient privilege because it falls within recognized exceptions for reporting child abuse and protecting third parties from imminent danger. The court reasoned that both statutory and common-law principles override the privilege in such circumstances. First, New York's Social Services Law § 415 mandates that medical professionals, including EMTs and hospital personnel, report suspected child abuse or maltreatment, and provides that such reports are admissible in related proceedings. The missing newborn created a reasonable suspicion of abuse, triggering this mandatory reporting duty. Second, the court recognized a common-law exception based on Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., which imposes a duty on medical professionals to disclose confidential information to protect a third party from a clear and present danger. The emergency situation involving a missing, vulnerable newborn justified disclosure to the police to protect the baby's life. Therefore, the information was properly used to support the search warrant and the grand jury indictment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the physician-patient privilege, while a significant statutory right, is not absolute and must yield to countervailing public policy interests, particularly the protection of vulnerable children and the prevention of imminent harm. The court's dual reliance on the Social Services Law's mandatory reporting scheme and the common-law Tarasoff exception provides a robust legal foundation for medical professionals to breach confidentiality in child endangerment cases. This case clarifies for prosecutors that evidence obtained through such required disclosures is not subject to suppression and can form the basis of a criminal indictment, thereby strengthening the legal framework for prosecuting crimes against children.
