In the Matter of the Grand Jury Investigation of Onondaga County, 59 N.Y.2d 350 (1983)
A hospital under investigation by a grand jury for potential crimes against its patients cannot assert physician-patient privilege, social worker-client privilege, or patient privacy rights to resist a subpoena for patient records, nor can it invoke the litigation preparation exception to discovery.
Summary
A hospital, facing a grand jury investigation into potential criminal activity related to patient deaths (specifically, alleged “no coding” practices), attempted to quash subpoenas for patient records, citing physician-patient privilege, social worker-client privilege, patient privacy rights, and the protection for materials prepared for litigation. The New York Court of Appeals held that the hospital could not assert these privileges or protections to shield the records from the grand jury. The Court reasoned that the purpose of these privileges is to protect patients and encourage open communication, not to shield potential criminal activity by the hospital itself. Additionally, it found that the protection for litigation preparation does not apply to grand jury subpoenas.
Facts
The Deputy Attorney-General for Medicaid Fraud Control issued grand jury subpoenas to a hospital and its executive vice-president, seeking records related to two deceased patients, Maria M. and Daisy S. The investigation stemmed from suspicions of “no coding,” a practice of selectively denying life-saving measures to certain patients. The hospital moved to quash the subpoenas.
Procedural History
Special Term denied the hospital’s motion to quash the subpoenas related to Maria M., and the Appellate Division affirmed. Subsequently, the grand jury issued a subpoena regarding Daisy S., which was also challenged and upheld in the lower courts. The appeals concerning both subpoenas were consolidated before the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a hospital under grand jury investigation can assert the physician-patient privilege to prevent disclosure of patient records relevant to the investigation.
2. Whether the hospital can assert the social worker-client privilege to prevent disclosure of patient records.
3. Whether the hospital can assert a patient’s constitutional right to privacy to prevent disclosure of patient records.
4. Whether the conditional bar to discovery of material prepared for litigation under CPLR 3101(d) applies to a grand jury subpoena duces tecum.
Holding
1. No, because the privilege is designed to protect the patient, not to shield the hospital from potential criminal liability.
2. No, because the purpose of the social worker-client privilege is to encourage uninhibited disclosure by the individual seeking assistance, not to protect a hospital potentially involved in crimes against patients.
3. No, because in this context, the hospital lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of its deceased patients.
4. No, because the legislative intent of CPLR 3101(d) was not to impede legitimate grand jury investigations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the broad latitude traditionally afforded to grand juries in investigating potential criminal activity. While evidentiary privileges generally apply to grand jury proceedings, their application is limited when it does not further their legitimate purpose. The physician-patient and social worker-client privileges are intended to encourage full disclosure by patients and clients to secure appropriate treatment and assistance. The Court reasoned that allowing a hospital to assert these privileges to shield itself from investigation would undermine, not serve, the purpose of these privileges.
Quoting from People v. Lay, the court emphasized that “the purpose of the privilege is to protect the patient, not to shield the criminal.” The Court extended this principle to the grand jury context. It further reasoned that the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings mitigates concerns that compelling disclosure would inhibit future communications between patients and their physicians or social workers.
The Court found that the hospital lacked standing to assert the deceased patients’ right to privacy. Regarding the material prepared for litigation, the Court stated that CPLR 3101(d)’s conditional privilege was not intended to impede legitimate grand jury investigations. The court reasoned that the legislature did not intend for the conditions imposed on the discovery of material prepared for litigation to apply to grand jury subpoenas. The Court emphasized the relevance of the subpoenaed documents to the grand jury’s legitimate investigation.