Buckman v. Verazin
54 A.3d 956
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- This medical malpractice case centers on Buckmans' discovery requests for Dr. Verazin's past five years of sigmoid colectomy/anterior resection operative notes, redacted to protect patient identities.
- The trial court initially denied but then granted reconsideration, ordering production under HIPAA-based constraints (45 C.F.R. § 164.512(a)).
- Appellants (Dr. Verazin, Health System, Hospital) appealed the December 20, 2011 order and sought interlocutory relief; stay proceedings were issued pending appeal.
- The Buckmans argued the records were necessary to assess Dr. Verazin's experience and technique and to impeach his testimony; Appellants argued privacy, physician-patient privilege, and lack of relevance.
- The appellate court reversed, holding third-party records are confidential, not probative of the standard of care, and that impeachment could be achieved by less intrusive means; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether production of third-party operative notes was proper | Buckmans argued records verify standard of care and impeach Verazin | Appellants argued privacy and privilege; records not probative | No; order reversed; records confidential and non-probative |
| Whether physician-patient privilege and privacy rights bar disclosure | Buckmans contended records are needed for negligence theory and impeachment | Verazin et al. argued privilege and privacy protections apply | Yes; privilege/privacy protections bar disclosure of non-consenting third-party records |
| Whether the trial court properly balanced privacy against discovery interests | Buckmans maintained need outweighed privacy | Appellants argued strong privacy interests and collateral nature | No; balance favoring privacy; discovery order improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Faust, 852 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discovery of confidential medical records as collateral order; privacy interests prevail over intrusion)
- In re June 1979 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury, 415 A.2d 73 (Pa. 1980) (privacy rights under constitutional protections; limits on disclosure)
- Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Cent., 609 A.2d 796 (Pa. 1992) (balancing test for intrusion into private records; public policy constraints)
- Passarello v. Grumbine, 29 A.3d 1158 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of care is objective; error-in-judgment instruction improper)
- Pringle v. Rapaport, 980 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of care determined by expert testimony; subjective state of mind irrelevant)