Isidore Steiner, DPM, PC v. Bonanni
807 N.W.2d 902
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff seeks discovery of defendant's patient list to prove contract breach and misappropriation.
- HIPAA and state physician-patient privilege issues govern whether nonparty patient data may be disclosed.
- HIPAA permits disclosure in judicial proceedings with patient notice and protective orders; Michigan law generally protects patient privacy.
- Trial court held Michigan physician-patient privilege applies and privileged nonparty patient names; discovery was denied.
- Court must decide whether HIPAA preempts Michigan law or whether Michigan law is more protective and controls.
- Court affirms trial court, holding Michigan law is more protective and HIPAA does not preempt it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HIPAA preempt Michigan physician-patient privilege? | Plaintiff argues HIPAA governs and permits disclosure. | Bonanni argues Michigan law is more protective, hence controls. | HIPAA does not preempt Michigan law; Michigan law applies. |
| Does MCL 600.2157 prohibit disclosure of nonparty patient information? | Plaintiff claims waiver possibilities under 600.2157 allow disclosure. | Bonanni contends the privilege is absolute and disclosure is barred. | Michigan physician-patient privilege is an absolute bar to nonparty patient disclosure. |
| Is the trial court's denial of disclosure proper under Michigan law and case law? | Plaintiff contends need for patient identities to enforce contractual rights. | Bonanni asserts nonparty privacy and privilege protect patient information. | Yes; the trial court did not abuse discretion; disclosure was properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v Oakwood Hosp Corp, 239 Mich App 461 (2000) (physician-patient privilege is an absolute bar; patient privacy protected)
- Schechet v Kesten, 372 Mich 346 (1964) (nonparty patient names are protected within the veil of privilege)
- Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hosp Corp, 220 Mich App 248 (1996) (nonparty patient identities remain privileged if not in controversy)
- Popp v Crittenton Hosp, 181 Mich App 662 (1989) (nonparty patient names/records safeguarded; privilege upheld)
- Dierickx v Cottage Hosp Corp, 152 Mich App 162 (1986) (nonparty patient information protected where not in controversy)