Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, 32 A.3d 800

Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital and Sodexho entities; appellate review of subpoena enforcement order.
Plaintiffs allege spinal injuries from a hospital cafeteria chair collapse; Dr. Green treated Barrick as orthopedist.
Sodexho served subpoenas under Pa.R.C.P. 4009.21 seeking complete Barrick medical chart from Appalachian; update provided in 2009.
Appalachian produced medical records and a separate update noting some non-treatment records not produced.
Sodexho moved to enforce the subpoena on June 29, 2009; trial court held an in camera review and then granted enforcement.
Court of appeals held the subpoena exceeded the scope of 4003.5 and the communications were not discoverable; reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the subpoena seeking Dr. Green's and counsel's communications is proper	Barrick argues 4003.5 limits to expert testimony; letters fall outside scope.	Sodexho contends broader discovery permitted; communications may be relevant to expert testimony.	Order reversed; communications not discoverable under 4003.5 and 4003.3

Cooper v. Schoffstall, 588 Pa. 505 (2006) (restricts scope of discovery from non-party experts; cause shown required for further discovery)
McGovern v. Hospital Service Assoc., 785 A.2d 1012 (Pa. Super. 2001) (untimely objections may still preserve privilege challenge in discovery)
T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc., 950 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2008) (work-product doctrine; in camera review may be needed to determine privilege scope)
Womer v. Hilliker, 589 Pa. 256 (2006) (substantial compliance standard for procedural rules)
Bednar v. Dana Corp., 962 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Super. 2008) (construction of discovery rules; intent of Supreme Court controls)
Gocial v. Independence Blue Cross, 827 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. 2003) (work-product doctrine explained; scope and exceptions)