Williams v. Roosevelt Hospital, 66 N.Y.2d 391 (1985)

A witness in a medical malpractice action may invoke the physician-patient privilege to avoid disclosing confidential communications made to her physician, but must testify to relevant medical facts or incidents concerning herself or her children.

Summary

In a medical malpractice suit, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the scope of the physician-patient privilege during pre-trial discovery. The Court held that while the privilege protects confidential communications between a patient and physician, it does not shield a witness from disclosing relevant factual medical information about themselves or their children. This distinction ensures both patient privacy and access to information crucial for a fair legal process. The case clarifies that the privilege aims to protect the confidentiality of doctor-patient communications, not to block the discovery of underlying facts.

Facts

The infant plaintiff, Rashan Williams, allegedly suffered brain damage due to negligent obstetrical care during his birth in 1979. During a pre-trial examination, the infant’s mother, a non-party witness, was questioned about her medical history, the births and conditions of her other children, and related medical events. Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to several questions, instructing the witness not to answer based on physician-patient privilege.

Procedural History

Defendants moved for an order compelling the infant’s mother to appear for further examination and answer questions about her prior health history and the birth and physical condition of her other children. Special Term denied the motion based on a prior Second Department decision. The Appellate Division reversed, granting the motion for further examination, reasoning that the privilege applies to confidential information given to the physician, not to the mere facts of what happened. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the physician-patient privilege (CPLR 4504) allows a witness at a pre-trial examination in a medical malpractice action to refuse to answer questions about her own medical history and the birth and physical condition of her other children.

Holding

No, because the physician-patient privilege protects confidential communications, not the underlying facts and incidents of a person’s medical history. The witness can assert the privilege to protect specific communications, but she must answer questions about relevant medical facts.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court acknowledged New York’s liberal discovery rules (CPLR 3101[a]), balanced against the protection of privileged matter (CPLR 3101[b]). The physician-patient privilege (CPLR 4504) protects against the disclosure of information acquired by a medical professional while attending a patient in a professional capacity, when the information was necessary to enable them to act in that capacity. The court emphasized that while the privilege aims to protect confidential communications to foster open doctor-patient relationships, it does not extend to shielding the underlying facts of a person’s medical history. Citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, the Court analogized the physician-patient privilege to the attorney-client privilege, stating that “the protection of the privilege extends only to communications and not to facts.” The court reasoned that allowing a witness to conceal facts merely because they relate to medical care would undermine the discovery process. The burden to establish the applicability of the privilege rests on the party asserting it. The Court remanded the case for the trial court to determine the relevance of the information sought, emphasizing the policy favoring broad pretrial discovery. The court determined that the Appellate Division had the power to allow further examination of the witness because the physician-patient privilege does not provide a basis to refuse to reveal the information sought.