 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp.6/9/1999
UPDATED COPY
Deborah Dorris brought a medical malpractice action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corporation. During discovery, she sought to compel the hospital to disclose the name of a patient who shared her hospital room and witnessed the alleged negligence of a hospital employee. The court, Sharon Tevis Finch, J., granted her motion to compel. The Court of Appeals, Saad, P.J., and Corrigan and R. A. Benson, JJ., reversed on the basis of Schechet v Kesten, 372 Mich 346 (1964), which held that MCL 600.2157; MSA 27A.2157 prohibits disclosure of the name of such a patient (Docket No. 183036). The plaintiff appeals.
Eloise Gregory brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Heritage Hospital, arising from an assault and battery she suffered while a patient at the hospital, alleging breach of contract. She maintained that Heritage had a contractual duty to protect patients under its care, and that it had inadequate staffing to supervise and monitor the behavior of the patients under its psychiatric care. In response to the plaintiff's interrogatories and request for production of documents, Heritage filed various motions for summary disposition. The court, Daphne Means Curtis, J., granted the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, ordering Heritage to provide answers to the plaintiff's interrogatories, an incident report regarding the assault, the name of the patient who committed the assault, and other reports related to the assault. The Court of Appeals, Bandstra, P.J., and Sawyer and McDonald, JJ., denied leave to appeal (Docket Nos. 213224, 213225). Heritage appeals.
In an opinion by Justice Brickley, joined by Chief Justice Weaver, and Justices Taylor, Corrigan, and Young, the Supreme Court held:
Under MCL 600.2157; MSA 27A.2157, the names of unknown patients are protected by the physician-patient privilege, and hospitals have a duty to refrain from disclosure. Information collected by a hospital for the purpose of retrospective review by a peer committee is protected from discovery pursuant to MCL 333.20175; MSA 14.15(20175) and MCL 333.21515; MSA 14.15(21515). Supervision and monitoring of psychiatric patients in a psychiatric ward involves questions of professional medical management that cannot be judged by the common knowledge and experience of a jury.
1. The purpose of the physician-patient statute, MCL 600.2157; MSA 27A.2157, is to protect the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship and to encourage a patient to make a full disclosure of symptoms and condition. The language of the statute is clear. Where a patient has neither voluntarily nor impliedly waived the privilege as specifically provided in the statute, there are strong public policy reasons for applying the physician-patient privilege to disclosure of an unknown patient's name. A patient who fears disclosure may be chilled from seeking medical assistance.
2. In Gregory, the trial court erred in ordering the hospital to provide the plaintiff with any investigative reports relative to the incident report; any statements made by any person with respect to the incident; and any notes, memoranda, records, and reports related to the incident. The information was collected by the hospital for the purpose of retrospective review by a peer committee, and thus is protected from discovery under MCL 333.20175; MSA 14.15(20175) and MCL 333.21515; MSA 14.15(21515).
3. The trial court in Gregory also erred in denying the hospital's motions for summary disposition because of the plaintiff's failure to file a notice of intent and an affidavit of merit. The supervision and monitoring of psychiatric patients in a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|