Smith v. Mancini, 22 N.Y.2d 940 (1968)
In a personal injury action, a party’s physical condition is not deemed ‘in controversy’ under CPLR 3121 unless it is affirmatively asserted in a pleading, at an examination before trial, or substantiated by prior physical examinations; a mere denial of negligence or unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient.
Summary
In this personal injury case stemming from a car accident, the plaintiff sought access to the defendant’s hospital records, alleging the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the collision. The Court of Appeals addressed whether the defendant’s physical condition was sufficiently ‘in controversy’ to warrant disclosure under CPLR 3121. The Court held that a party’s physical condition is not ‘in controversy’ merely because negligence is alleged. Something more is required, such as the party affirmatively asserting their physical condition or prior substantiating examinations. The Court emphasized that the burden of demonstrating that a party’s condition is in controversy rests on the party seeking the disclosure.
Facts
The plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries sustained in a head-on collision. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the defendant was intoxicated and driving negligently. The plaintiff sought a court order to compel the defendant to authorize release of his hospital records from Nyack Hospital, related to his physical condition and blood alcohol content following the accident. The plaintiff’s attorney submitted an affidavit stating that the police report indicated the defendant was intoxicated, based on information obtained from Nyack Hospital.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, Special Term denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel authorization of the hospital records. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, certifying the question of whether the order was properly made.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s physical condition was “in controversy” within the meaning of CPLR 3121, such that the plaintiff was entitled to access the defendant’s hospital records.
Holding
No, because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant’s physical condition was genuinely ‘in controversy.’ The mere allegation of intoxication based on an attorney’s affidavit referencing a police report, without more, is insufficient to meet the threshold for compelling disclosure of hospital records under CPLR 3121.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that while CPLR 3121 permits a party to obtain a physical examination and hospital records of another party whose mental or physical condition is in controversy, this does not automatically open the door to disclosure in every personal injury case. The Court emphasized that the doctor-patient privilege, codified in CPLR 4504, remains a significant protection, although it can be waived. The Court clarified that bringing or defending a personal injury action where a mental or physical condition is affirmatively put in issue constitutes a waiver of the privilege. However, a simple denial of negligence does not place the defendant’s physical condition ‘in controversy.’ The burden of proving that a party’s mental or physical condition is in controversy lies with the party seeking the examination or hospital records. The Court criticized the plaintiff’s evidence, consisting only of an attorney’s affidavit referencing a police report containing hearsay, as insufficient. The Court distinguished this case from others where the defendant had affirmatively asserted a physical condition as a defense or where there was prior substantiating medical evidence. The Court articulated the proper procedure for seeking such disclosure: a notice under CPLR 3121, followed by a motion for a protective order by the opposing party under CPLR 3122 if they wish to contest the disclosure. This process allows for a factual determination based on sworn affidavits and other relevant proof. The Court highlighted the importance of protecting defendants from unwarranted intrusions into their medical history based on unsubstantiated allegations.