 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Guzman5/4/2000
waived his physician-patient privilege.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting these two claims because the physical and mental condition could be considered an issue and because the authorization was tailored to a specific physician and limited solely to condition at issue. Significantly, the Batson Court distinguished that case from another case in which the Supreme Court held that it was an abuse of discretion for a court to order the signing of a blank, general authorization similar to those in question here. That authorization, in effect, waived any privilege or confidentiality between the party and any third party from whom an adverse litigant is seeking information. See Mutter v. Wood, 794 S.W.2d 600, 601 (Tex. 1988). The Mutter court also was not called upon to determine the authority of a Court to order the signing of the authorization.
We hold that the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures do not authorize a Court to order the creation of an authorization for a third party to deliver information to a litigant.
Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order compelling Relator to execute the authorizations in question. The writ of mandamus will not issue unless the trial court fails to comply with the opinion of this Court.
ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice
Justice Yañez dissents.
Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed this 4th day of May, 2000.
|