 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nester v. Lima Memorial Hospital11/15/2000
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court.
JUDGMENT: Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
The plaintiffs-appellants, Deborah and Kenneth Nester ("appellants"), appeal the judgment of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas granting the Defendant-Appellee Dr. Todd Hixenbaugh's motion to compel complete medical records. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The pertinent facts and procedural history in this matter are as follows. In May of 1998 the Appellant Deborah Nester filed a claim for medical negligence against Dr. Hixenbaugh, Lima Memorial Hospital, and Dr. McCluskey, alleging various physical and psychological damages. Appellant Kenneth Nester filed a loss of consortium claim against the same. The case sub judice involves a dispute over the medical records of Deborah Nester.
The appellees requested the medical records of Deborah Nester from Dr. Herman, her current physician. In March of 2000, they received only the records from 1990 to the present. The records pertaining to Deborah's treatment by Dr. Herman and/or her office prior to 1990 were withheld. The appellants object to the disclosure of these records claiming they are privileged and have no bearing on the issues at hand.
On April 5, 2000, Dr. Hixenbaugh filed a motion to compel disclosure of all the medical records held by Dr. Herman. On April 8, 2000, the trial court granted the motion and ordered the appellants to produce the "complete medical records and history held by Dr. Parmie Herman relative to all treatment from 1973 to present, to all defense counsel no later than May 5, 2000." It is from this judgment that the appellants now appeal, asserting one assignment of error.
Before addressing the merits of this matter, we must contend with the appellees' allegations that the order appealed from is not a final appealable order. R.C. 2505.02(B) provides that an order is final and may be reviewed when (l) it concerns a provisional remedy and (2) the appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful remedy on appeal after final judgment. The discovery of privileged matter is specifically defined as a provisional remedy in R.C. 2505.02(A)(3). Furthermore, once privileged information is disclosed there would be no way for it to be made private once again. Finding information to be privileged and not subject to an exception allowing for its disclosure after the fact, clearly does not afford the appealing party a meaningful or effective remedy. Therefore, we find that the order of the trial court is indeed a final, appealable order and we will now address the appellants' sole assignment of error.
Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in requiring the Plaintiffs-Appellants to produce medical records Plaintiffs-Appellants assert are privileged, i.e., are not causally or historically related to the injuries claimed in the underlying action.
The appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting the appellees' motion to compel and ordering them to disclose her complete medical history to the appellees. The appellants argue that these records are privileged and do not all fall under an exception allowing for their disclosure. For the following reasons, we agree.
R.C. 2317.02 sets forth the rules and requirements pertaining to privileged communication. R.C. 2317.02 states, in pertinent part:
The following persons shall not testify in certain respects:
(B)(1) A physician or a dentist concerning a communication made to him by his patient in that relation or his advise to his patient, except as otherwise provided in this divi
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|