Blog

Health Law News

Print PDF

Update: Federal Court Narrowly Construes Wisconsin’s Physician-Patient Privilege

Posted on January 28, 2013 in Health Law News

Published by: Hall Render

Executive Summary

In Vincent v. Quality Addiction Management, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-205 (E.D. Wis. January 14, 2013), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin narrowly construed Wisconsin’s physician-patient privilege to partially grant a motion to compel defendant Quality Addiction Management, Inc. (“QAM”) to disclose the medical records of the co-defendant (“Madison”) that did not contain “confidential communications made or information obtained or disseminated for purposes of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental, or emotional condition.” While not specifically providing what information QAM was to produce, the court indicated that QAM must produce the names of those providers who treated Madison and on what dates she received treatment.

The Decision: Vincent v. Quality Addiction Management, Inc.

Madison was a patient of QAM and was prescribed methadone for treatment of a prescription narcotics addiction.  According to Vincent’s complaint, QAM agreed to distribute and Madison agreed to receive her take-home doses of Methadone prescription every Wednesday. In 2008, Vincent’s son (“Jamison”) visited Madison. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, during this visit Madison gave Jamison at least 200 milligrams of liquid methadone. In exchange, Madison received a bag of various narcotics. Later that same evening, Jamison ingested Madison’s methadone dose. Jamison died by overdose in his hotel room the next morning.

Vincent brought a wrongful death action against QAM and Madison for the death of her son, Jamison. In response to a motion to compel seeking Madison’s medical records, QAM objected to the request and argued that Wis. Stat. § 146.82 required the confidentiality of patient health care records, and Wis. Stat. § 905.04, the physician-patient privilege, and that neither has a general exception for litigation that justified the order requested by the Plaintiff.

Wisconsin Statute § 146.82(1) provides for the confidentiality of patient records. This section states that health records may be disclosed  only “to the persons designated in this section,” other people with the “informed consent of the patient” or an “authorized” person. This statute contains an exception allowing for release of patient health care records upon a court order. Section 905.04(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes codifies the physician-patient privilege. This section states that a person may block disclosure of information “obtained or disseminated for purposes of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental, or emotional condition…” Section 905.04(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes also allows a health care provider involved in the patient’s treatment to claim the privilege on the patient’s behalf.

The court concluded that while QAM could assert the privilege on Madison’s behalf, the privilege was to be “narrowly construed.” As a result, even if the privilege would protect confidential communications regarding Madison’s treatment and diagnosis for her condition, the privilege would not extend, for example, to the names of those providers who treated her and on what dates she received treatment. Such information, according to the court, was within the proper scope of discovery. The court granted Vincent’s motion as it pertained to records that did not contain “confidential communications made or information obtained or disseminated for purposes of diagnosis or treatment of [Madison’s] physical, mental or emotional condition…”

Conclusion/Practical Takeaway

This decision reaffirms, at a federal level, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s stance that statutory privileges are to be narrowly construed. See Steinberg v. Jensen, 194 Wis. 2d 439, 464, 534 N.W.2d 361 (1995). Even though this case does not represent a change in the law, the case highlights the fact that even in sensitive treatment situations, such as addiction recovery, a court may order production of portions of a patient’s medical record.

If you are currently involved in a physician-patient privilege discovery issue and require assistance in responding to the request, or if you have questions regarding the scope of the physician-patient privilege, please contact: