People v. Sinski, 88 N.Y.2d 487 (1996)

The physician-patient privilege protects confidential communications between a patient and their healthcare provider, and exceptions to this privilege are narrowly construed, particularly in the context of criminal investigations.

Summary

Defendant, a police officer, was convicted of crimes based on evidence that he unlawfully obtained drug prescriptions. The prosecution argued that Public Health Law § 3373 eliminated the physician-patient privilege, allowing the admission of the evidence. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that § 3373 does not permit the release of confidential medical information to law enforcement for criminal proceedings absent judicial process. The court emphasized the importance of patient confidentiality to encourage open communication with doctors and narrowly interpreted the statutory exception.

Facts

Defendant, a police officer, experienced dental and back problems requiring pain medication. The Internal Affairs Bureau suspected excessive drug use based on insurance claims filed by the defendant and initiated an investigation. Investigators interviewed the defendant’s physicians and dentists, obtaining written statements and reviewing patient records. The Grand Jury subsequently charged the defendant with criminal possession of a forged instrument, falsifying a business record, and violating Public Health Law provisions related to obtaining prescriptions.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted the defendant on all four counts. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence admissible under Public Health Law § 3373. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the physician-patient privilege had been violated.

Issue(s)

Whether the exception to the physician-patient privilege contained in section 3373 of the Public Health Law extends to the investigation and criminal prosecution of the defendant in this case, allowing the admission of confidential medical information obtained from his physicians and dentists.

Holding

No, because Section 3373 of the Public Health Law does not authorize treating physicians to release confidential information to police authorities for criminal proceedings absent judicial process; the legislative intent is to maintain patient confidentiality, and the exception to the privilege is narrowly tailored to the specific duties arising under Article 33 of the Public Health Law.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that the physician-patient privilege, codified in CPLR 4504(a), promotes open communication between patients and physicians. While the privilege has exceptions, it is to be broadly construed. Public Health Law § 3373, enacted to prevent drug diversion, was not intended to generally abrogate the privilege for criminal prosecution. The statute’s language and legislative history reveal a concern for patient confidentiality, limiting disclosure to reports required by the statute. The court distinguished Matter of Camperlengo v. Blum, noting that case involved Medicaid billing requirements that implied an exception to the privilege. The court rejected the argument that a crime-fraud exception should apply, finding that the prosecution had not argued that the defendant visited doctors solely to obtain drugs. As the court noted, “The People’s suggestion that the Legislature intended section 3373 to generally abrogate the physician-patient privilege for the purpose of criminal prosecution is not only contrary to the rationale behind the physician-patient privilege — to encourage complete candor in order to secure appropriate treatment — but it is also contradicted by the language of the statute and the Legislature’s demonstrated concern over confidentiality in this area.”