Matter of Grand Jury Investigation in Onondaga County, 59 N.Y.2d 130 (1983)
A grand jury subpoena seeking the names and addresses of hospital patients treated for stab wounds, even when limited to a specific timeframe, is impermissible as it violates the physician-patient privilege because compliance would necessarily reveal privileged information about diagnosis and treatment.
Summary
The Onondaga County District Attorney issued a grand jury subpoena to a hospital, seeking medical records of patients treated for stab wounds within a specific timeframe, believing a homicide victim may have stabbed her assailant. After the hospital moved to quash the subpoena, the DA narrowed the request to just names and addresses. The New York Court of Appeals held that even the limited subpoena violated the physician-patient privilege. The court reasoned that providing names and addresses would inherently disclose privileged information regarding the patient’s diagnosis and treatment, thus undermining the purpose of the privilege. The court also emphasized that any exceptions to the privilege are the responsibility of the legislature and that the public interest does not automatically override statutory protections.
Facts
On June 16, 1982, a woman was found murdered. The District Attorney of Onondaga County suspected the victim may have stabbed her assailant before her death.
In an effort to identify the potential assailant, the District Attorney issued a grand jury subpoena to a local hospital on June 17, 1982.
The initial subpoena demanded “any and all medical records pertaining to treatment of any person with stab wounds or other wounds caused by a knife, from June 15, 1982 to the present time.”
Subsequently, the District Attorney limited the subpoena via letter to the “[n]ames and addresses of those treated for stab wounds or other wounds caused by a knife from June 15, 1982 through June 17, 1982”.
Procedural History
The hospital moved to quash the original subpoena, arguing it violated the physician-patient privilege and the constitutional right to privacy.
County Court denied the motion to quash but stayed enforcement pending appeal.
The Appellate Division reversed the County Court’s order, granted the motion to quash, and quashed the subpoena.
The District Attorney appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a grand jury subpoena requesting the names and addresses of patients treated for stab wounds, even when limited to a specific time frame, violates the physician-patient privilege.
Whether the public interest in investigating a homicide overrides the physician-patient privilege.
Holding
Yes, because revealing the names and addresses of patients treated for stab wounds would necessarily disclose privileged information regarding their diagnosis and treatment.
No, because the legislature has created specific exceptions to the physician-patient privilege, and the courts should not create additional exceptions based on public policy concerns without legislative guidance. “Those exceptions to the privilege make clear the legislative concept that exceptions to the statutorily enacted physician-patient privilege are for the Legislature to declare.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the physician-patient privilege is statutory and must be construed broadly to encourage full disclosure by patients to their physicians. CPLR 4504(a) prohibits the disclosure of information acquired by a physician or hospital in attending a patient in a professional capacity, where such information was necessary to enable the physician to act in that capacity. While facts plain to observation without expert knowledge are not privileged, the act of seeking treatment for a stab wound and its associated diagnosis and treatment are inherently confidential.
The court distinguished cases where only the names and addresses of a doctor’s patients or photographs of patients meeting a description were sought, noting those did not necessarily reveal privileged information.
The court acknowledged that while the privilege belongs to the patient, a hospital may assert it on behalf of a patient who has not waived it, even if the patient is suspected of a crime.
The court rejected the District Attorney’s argument that the public interest in investigating a homicide overrides the privilege, stating that exceptions to the privilege are for the legislature to declare. The court noted the legislature had created specific exceptions, such as for child abuse and certain firearm-related injuries, implying a deliberate choice not to create a broad exception for all violent crimes. The court noted, “specific exceptions to the physician-patient privilege have been enacted by the Legislature…Those exceptions to the privilege make clear the legislative concept that exceptions to the statutorily enacted physician-patient privilege are for the Legislature to declare.”