Estate of Robert Prink v. Owners and Architects of 30 Rockefeller Center
No Reporter Information Provided (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who brings a wrongful death action affirmatively places the decedent's mental and physical condition at issue, thereby waiving on the decedent's behalf any evidentiary privileges (such as physician-patient or spousal) that would otherwise protect that information.
Facts:
- Robert Prink was an associate at a law firm with an office on the 36th floor of 30 Rockefeller Plaza.
- Prink had been seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Thomas Doyle, for being acutely tense and depressed.
- Prink confidentially discussed his psychiatric treatment with his wife, the plaintiff.
- On March 1, 1976, Prink was found dead on the sixth-floor setback of the building directly below his office.
- The window in Prink's office was open, and there were no eyewitnesses to his fall.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, as administratrix of Robert Prink's estate, sued the owners and architects of 30 Rockefeller Center in the New York Supreme Court (trial court) for wrongful death.
- During a pre-trial examination, the plaintiff refused to disclose conversations with her late husband and his psychiatrist, asserting spousal and physician-patient privileges.
- Defendants filed a motion in the trial court to compel the plaintiff to answer the questions.
- The trial court (Special Term) granted the defendants' motion, ordering the plaintiff to testify.
- Plaintiff appealed this order to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order compelling testimony.
- The Appellate Division then certified a question to the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, asking whether its order was properly made.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the spousal and physician-patient privileges prevent disclosure of a decedent's mental condition in a wrongful death action where the circumstances of death are consistent with either negligence or suicide?
Opinions:
Majority - Meyer, J.
No. By bringing a wrongful death action, a plaintiff places the decedent's mental condition at issue and thereby waives the physician-patient and spousal privileges. A wrongful death action may only be maintained if the decedent could have maintained the action had he survived. Had Mr. Prink survived and sued, he could not have claimed affirmative relief while simultaneously using privileges to refuse disclosure of information—his mental state—bearing upon his right to maintain the action and the defendants' defense of attempted suicide. It would be unfair to allow the plaintiff to use the privileges as a sword to claim damages while also using them as a shield to hide relevant evidence, effectively preventing the defendants from proving their lack of culpability.
Dissenting - Chief Judge Cooke
No as to the physician-patient privilege, but Yes as to the spousal privilege. While commencing the action placed the decedent's mental condition at issue and waived the doctor-patient privilege, the privilege for confidential marital communications should not be abrogated. The spousal privilege exists to protect the sanctity and privacy of the marital relationship, a strong social policy codified by the legislature. Forcing a litigant into a 'Hobson's choice' of either betraying a spouse's trust or forgoing a legal claim is unjust and undermines the privilege's purpose. The court should not substitute its policy judgment for that of the legislature, especially when the relevant information regarding mental condition is available from the psychiatrist, making the destruction of the marital privilege unnecessary.
Dissenting - Fuchsberg, J.
Yes. Agreeing with Chief Judge Cooke, this opinion adds that protecting the inter-spousal privilege is supported by the fundamental human need for confidential relationships and the growing recognition of a constitutional right to privacy. The court should support, rather than abandon, this important privilege.
Analysis:
This case establishes the principle of "at-issue waiver" for evidentiary privileges in New York wrongful death actions. The court's decision prevents a plaintiff from using privileges as both a sword and a shield—that is, suing based on a particular set of facts while simultaneously using a privilege to block the defendant from discovering information central to those facts. This ruling prioritizes fairness and the search for truth in litigation over the absolute protection of confidentiality when the holder of the privilege has affirmatively placed the privileged information at the heart of the legal dispute. It significantly impacts litigation strategy, forcing plaintiffs to anticipate that filing certain claims will open the door to discovery of otherwise protected communications.
