79 A.3d 1284
R.I.2013Background
- DePina seeks postconviction relief and served a subpoena for Reverdes’ health care records from Gateway.
- Reverdes testified as an eyewitness in DePina’s 1998 murder trial and later disclosed mental health issues.
- The Superior Court allowed production of records after in camera review, balancing under Rule 26 but not under the Health Care Information Act’s balancing criteria.
- Reverdes moved to quash; the court denied but stayed release pending appeal; Reverdes sought interlocutory review.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacates the order and remands for additional findings consistent with this opinion, focusing on statutory analysis under the Confidentiality of Health Care Information Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subpoena order violated the Health Care Information Act. | DePina argues records are relevant and need outweighs privacy. | Reverdes contends waiver issues and privacy protection bar disclosure. | Yes; order reversed for proper statutory balancing. |
| Whether the order is reviewable on appeal as an interlocutory decision. | DePina seeks immediate review to obtain records. | Reverdes argues lack of finality; privacy interests apply. | Interlocutory order reviewed given potential irreparable harm; remanded for further findings. |
| Whether the in camera disclosure complied with statutory analysis required by §5-37.3-6.1. | DePina relies on in camera disclosure under Rule 26. | Reverdes argues statutory balancing was not performed. | Imbalance; failure to apply statutory subsection 6.1(d)-(e) requires remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- McAuslan v. McAuslan, 34 R.I. 462 (1912) (interlocutory orders with finality may be reviewed to prevent irreparable harm)
- Town of Lincoln v. Cournoyer, 375 A.2d 410 (1977) (interlocutory review when imminent harm is present)
- Henderson v. Newport County Regional YMCA, 966 A.2d 1242 (R.I. 2009) (liberal discovery policy; broadened pretrial disclosure)
- State v. Brown, 709 A.2d 465 (R.I. 1998) (health care information remains presumptively private; valid subpoena does not negate privilege)
- Washburn v. Rite Aid Corp., 695 A.2d 495 (R.I. 1997) (privacy protections in health information persist despite subpoena)
- Cabral v. Arruda, 556 A.2d 48 (R.I. 1989) (statutory privacy interests balance against discovery)