Jerry L. And Susan Ashenfelter Vs. Amy S. Mulligan
2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 145
| Iowa | 2010Background
- Ashenfelters sought grandparent visitation with Amy Mulligan’s child under a prior statutory regime.
- Ashenfelters served broad discovery requests for Amy’s medical/mental health records and related documents.
- District court ordered production of most requested records, finding Amy’s mental health was at issue and privilege did not apply.
- This court granted interlocutory appeal and stayed enforcement, reversing the district court’s order.
- Case became moot under the current grandparent visitation statute, which now limits standing to different circumstances, but the court chose to address the privacy issue nonetheless.
- Court examined whether Amy’s medical/mental health records are protected by Iowa Code section 622.10 and by constitutional privacy rights in the discovery context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Iowa Code section 622.10 protect discovery of medical records here? | Ashenfelters argue records are privileged and not discoverable. | Mulligan contends discovery can proceed because records are relevant to fitness and not testimonial disclosures. | Yes; records are privileged and not discoverable. |
| Is the patient-litigant exception (§ 622.10(2)) applicable here? | Ashenfelters claim Amy’s fitness is an element of their claim, triggering the exception. | Mulligan argues exception applies whenever the patient’s condition is an element or factor in the claim. | No; exception does not apply absent the condition being an element of the patient’s own claim. |
| Does Amy have a constitutional right to privacy in her medical/mental health records in this civil case, and can it be overridden by a balancing test? | Ashenfelters imply privacy interests can be outweighed by discovery needs. | Ashenfelters fail to present countervailing interests; balancing favors disclosure. | Yes; privacy rights protect records; balancing cannot override in civil case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman v. Blom, 249 Iowa 836 (Iowa 1958) (medical records treated as privileged communications)
- Eldrenkamp v. State, 541 N.W.2d 877 (Iowa 1995) (medical records contain privileged communications to same extent)
- Chung v. Legacy Corp., 548 N.W.2d 147 (Iowa 1996) (discovery of confidential communications privileged; rule extended to discovery)
- Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2006) (privileges tempered by constitutional right to present a defense; disclosure allowed in limited in camera review)
- Cashen, 789 N.W.2d 400 (Iowa 2010) (balancing privacy rights against societal/investigative interests; constitutional considerations discussed)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1996) (balancing test rejected in civil cases; confidentiality protections are strong)
- Santi v. Santi, 633 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 2001) (presumption of parental fitness in child custody matters)
- Marriage of Howard, 661 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2003) (presumption of parental fitness; best interests analysis cannot override fundamental rights in some contexts)