 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CHUNG v. LEGACY CORP.5/22/1996
Appellee, Tat Man Chung, was injured when the vehicle he was driving collided with a vehicle operated by appellant, Kip Donavan Karns. In this personal injury action brought by Chung to recover damages for his injuries, Chung alleged that Karns was negligent "in operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol." Karns denied this allegation in his answer.
Chung subsequently filed an application for the court's permission to take the deposition of the physician who treated Karns in the hospital emergency room immediately following the accident; Chung also sought production of Karns' medical records "to show [Karns'] condition and particularly his state of intoxication." Karns resisted, contending that the physician-patient privilege in Iowa Code section 622.10 (1993) protected this evidence from disclosure to third parties. The district court granted Chung's application, allowing the discovery.
We granted Karns' request to take this interlocutory appeal and now reverse the district court's ruling. We conclude a plaintiff cannot effect a waiver of the defendant's physician-patient privilege by making the defendant's medical condition an element or factor of the plaintiff's case.
I. Physician-Patient Privilege.
The ultimate objective of a majority of the rules of evidence is the elucidation of truth by excluding unreliable or prejudicial evidence. 1 Kenneth S. Braun et al., McCormick on Evidence § 72, at 268-69 (John W. Strong ed., 4th ed. 1992) (hereinafter "McCormick on Evidence"). The rules of privilege, however, have a different goal. They are not designed to facilitate the fact-finding process; they exist to promote an interest in protecting "certain communications from disclosure even though the confidences may otherwise be admissible." 7 James A. Adams & Kasey W. Kincaid, Iowa Practice: Evidence § 501.1, at 186 (1988) (hereinafter "Iowa Practice"); see also McCormick on Evidence § 72, at 269.
The physician-patient privilege was unknown to the common law; however, it has been part of a testimonial privilege recognized in Iowa's statutes since the 1851 Iowa Code. Iowa Practice § 504.2, at 218. This statutory privilege is contained in Iowa Code section 622.10:
A practicing . . . physician . . ., who obtains information by reason of the person's employment, . . . shall not be allowed, in [548 NW2d Page 149]
giving testimony, to disclose any confidential communications properly entrusted to the person in the person's professional capacity, and necessary and proper to enable the person to discharge the functions of the person's office according to the usual course of practice or discipline. The prohibition does not apply to cases where the person in whose favor the prohibition is made waives the rights conferred; nor does the prohibition apply to physicians . . . in a civil action in which the condition of the person in whose favor the prohibition is made is an element or factor of the claim or defense of the person or of any party claiming through or under the person. The evidence is admissible upon trial of the action only as it relates to the condition alleged.
Iowa Code § 622.10 (1993). The statutory rule of testimonial exclusion has been extended by rule to the discovery of confidential communications. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 122(a) (excluding privileged materials from the scope of permissible discovery); Squealer Feeds v. Pickering, 530 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Iowa 1995).
Section 622.10 is intended to promote uninhibited and full communication between a patient and his doctor so the doctor will obtain the information necessary to competently diagnose and treat the patient. State v. Deases,
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|