2017 Ohio 9226
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In June 2014, Donald Hartman struck two pedestrians, Carolyn Harvey and Barbara Petersen, while driving in downtown Dayton; both sued Hartman for negligence and the actions were consolidated.
- Prior to his deposition in September 2016, Hartman had cataract surgery; during the deposition, defense counsel instructed Hartman not to answer some questions about his medical history/eyesight.
- In an in-chambers conference, Harvey’s counsel orally moved for an order requiring Hartman to sign medical-authorizations for his vision-related records (from July 18, 2013 to present) and sought permission to further question Hartman about his eyesight.
- The trial court ordered Hartman to sign releases for his eyesight medical records for the specified period and allowed Plaintiffs to inquire further about his eyesight after receiving the records.
- Hartman appealed, arguing the court erred in compelling medical releases and permitting further inquiry into privileged medical information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could compel Hartman to sign medical-release authorizations for eyesight records from July 18, 2013 to present | Harvey argued the records are relevant and she should obtain them for trial preparation | Hartman argued the order compelled disclosure of privileged physician-patient communications and records protected by R.C. 2317.02(B) | The order as written was overbroad; the court vacated it and remanded, permitting only non-privileged records to be compelled |
| Whether Plaintiffs may further question Hartman about his eyesight after receiving records | Harvey argued Ward allows inquiry into a party’s own medical information when relevant | Hartman argued the questioning could invade privileged communications and was not justified on the record | Court concluded record lacked sufficient information to review the allowance for further inquiry; remanded and instructed questioning be limited to non-privileged matters |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (Ohio 2010) (physician-patient privilege does not let a party refuse to disclose his or her own medical information when relevant in civil litigation)
- Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2009) (medical records generally protected by the physician-patient privilege)