 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Columbia Valley Regional Medical Center3/8/2001
Opinion by Justice Rodriguez. Dissenting Opinion by Justice J. Bonner Dorsey, joined by Senior Justice Robert J. Seerden.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before the Court En Banc
In this mandamus action, Columbia Valley Regional Medical Center (the hospital) seeks relief from a trial court's order that requires production of nonparty labor and delivery records, and related nurses notes, in redacted form so that patient identity is not revealed. We hold, under the facts of this case, that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the production of redacted nonparty medical records. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus.
Mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion. See Liberty Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. v. Akin, 927 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The trial court has no discretion to misinterpret or misapply the law; an abuse of discretion is committed when the trial court clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
The underlying action is for medical malpractice. The real party in interest, Sandra Cantu, individually and as next friend of Martha Esmeralda Rodriguez, a minor child, seeks production of nonparty medical records that concern deliveries where Nurse Brenda Mayo-Williams, a labor and delivery room nurse, was present in the delivery room. Cantu maintains she needs the records in order to determine whether it was Nurse Mayo-Williams, and not the doctor, who delivered her baby.
The hospital seeks relief on grounds that the trial court abused its discretion in compelling it to turn over those records because the records are privileged. It claims that redacting the names of the patients will not cure the problem because other information contained in the records could reveal the identities of the patients with minimal investigative work. Moreover, the hospital claims that the doctor, co-defendant Dr. Martha Martinez, has already admitted she delivered Cantu's baby, and, thus, production is unnecessary. The hospital further argues that because certain portions of the documents are privileged, those documents are privileged in their entirety, and redaction does not defeat the privilege.
"Generally, confidential communications between a physician and patient are privileged and may not be disclosed." Hogue v. Kroger Store, 875 S.W.2d 477, 480 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied). Section 159.002 of the Texas Occupations Code and rule 509(c)(2) of the Texas Rules of Evidence specifically provide that records of the identity, diagnosis, evaluation or treatment of a patient are confidential and privileged and may not be disclosed. See TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. § 159.002(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); TEX. R. EVID. 509(c)(2). Further, the Texas Health and Safety Code provides that all health care information found in hospital records is privileged and cannot be disclosed without authorization. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 241.151(2) (Vernon Supp. 2001). "Health care information" is defined as "information recorded in any form or medium that identifies a patient and relates to the history, diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis of a patient." TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 241.151(2) (Vernon Supp. 2001).
Importantly, Cantu concedes that the medical records of the nonparties in the underlying litigation are privileged. Although there are a number of exceptions to this privilege, Cantu argues none. See TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. §§ 159.003-.004 (Vernon 2000); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 241.153 (Vernon Supp. 2001); TEX. R
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|