2022 Ohio 960
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Feb. 1, 2018: Bokma injured in a car crash with an uninsured driver; Allstate was her uninsured-motorist carrier.
- Jan. 15, 2020: Bokma sued the driver, Allstate, and others, alleging “severe and permanent” injuries and “great pain and suffering, both physical and emotional.”
- During discovery Allstate demanded medical-record authorizations reaching back to Feb. 1, 2008; Bokma objected, arguing some records (notably psychological/psychiatric) were privileged and not related to the claim.
- Trial court ordered Bokma to sign Allstate’s authorizations; she refused, executed an affidavit denying emotional/psychological trauma from the crash, and appealed.
- The core dispute: whether Bokma waived physician‑patient privilege for mental‑health records by asserting emotional damages and whether the trial court erred by not performing an in‑camera review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the trial court’s discovery order appealable despite being interlocutory? | Order not final; Civ.R. 54(B) missing so no immediate appeal | Order is final as to provisional remedy (privileged discovery) and thus appealable under R.C. 2505.02 | Appealable: orders compelling privileged discovery are final/provisional remedies and are reviewable immediately |
| Did the order unlawfully compel production of privileged psychological/psychiatric records (overbroad)? | Requiring authorizations forces disclosure of privileged mental‑health records not causally/historically related to the crash | Plaintiff waived privilege by pleading emotional pain and suffering; relevant records must be produced | Held for defendant: pleading emotional damages waived privilege for records causally/historically related to claimed injuries |
| Did the trial court commit reversible error by not conducting an in‑camera review? | Trial court should have performed in‑camera review before ordering production | No record of a motion for in‑camera review; order otherwise correct | No reversible error: Bokma did not move for in‑camera review and the court’s order was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, 89 N.E.3d 536 (2016) (compelled disclosure of privileged information causes irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on later appeal)
- Karimian-Dominique v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 139 N.E.3d 1237 (2019) (bringing a civil action for physical or mental injuries waives privilege as to conditions causally or historically related to the claim)
- Lycan v. Cleveland, 51 N.E.3d 593 (2016) (finality for appellate jurisdiction is judged under R.C. 2505.02)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 11 N.E.3d 1140 (2014) (discussion of finality and the role of Civ.R. 54(B))
- Miller v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 N.E.3d 980 (2015) (interlocutory discovery orders are generally not appealable absent an exception)
- Ojalvo v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 466 N.E.2d 875 (1984) (abuse of discretion standard for reviewing factual determinations)