Lykes v. Yates
77 A.3d 27
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Ester J. Lykes sued plastic surgeon Dr. James A. Yates alleging negligent post‑operative wound care after breast reduction, specifically that he instructed her to use Gold Bond powder which caused healing complications and foreign body granulomas.
- Lykes sought pretrial production of redacted medical records of Dr. Yates’ prior patients on whom he had used Gold Bond; the trial court denied the motion (and a later renewal) over HIPAA/privacy and relevance concerns.
- At trial Dr. Yates testified (as a fact witness) about his own prior use of Gold Bond; defense expert Dr. Ernest K. Manders testified that Gold Bond did not deviate from the standard of care and did not cause Lykes’ problems.
- Lykes presented expert testimony from treating physicians who had not seen Gold Bond used in post‑op wound care but did not present a plastic‑surgery expert to rebut Dr. Manders.
- The jury found no negligence by Dr. Yates; because the jury answered the negligence question against Lykes, it did not reach causation or damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court erred by denying motion to compel production of prior patients’ records | Lykes: records needed to impeach/contrast Dr. Yates’ practice and to cross‑examine credibility; privacy interests outweighed by prejudice from denial | Yates: requested records irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome; HIPAA/privacy protect third‑party records | Denial affirmed — privacy/HIPAA balancing and relevance weighed against disclosure; records not necessary to prove standard of care when experts can do so |
| Trial court erred by allowing Dr. Yates to testify about using Gold Bond on other patients | Lykes: testimony irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial | Yates: as a party‑physician he may testify about his own experience; testimony probative of whether usage was within standard of care | Admission affirmed — physician may testify about his own experience; testimony relevant and not unduly prejudicial |
| Trial court erred by denying renewed motion to compel production | Lykes: renewed need for records persisted and denial prejudiced her | Yates: same relevance and privacy objections as before; no changed circumstances | Denial affirmed for same reasons: degree of need lacking and privacy/compelling interest not met |
| Trial court erred by permitting testimony about cause of Lykes’ foreign body granulomas | Lykes: such testimony should have been excluded | Yates: testimony relevant to causation and defense explanation of injury | Even if admission was erroneous, no relief — jury did not reach causation (verdict on negligence for defendant), so any error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckman v. Verazin, 54 A.3d 956 (Pa. Super. 2012) (privacy/relevance balancing for medical records and limits on use of third‑party records)
- Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Center, 609 A.2d 796 (Pa. 1992) (privacy balancing test and discoverability of redacted records when necessary to establish negligence)
- Lemmon v. Ernst, 822 A.2d 768 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for new‑trial orders and trial court discretion)
- Brady v. Ballay, Thornton, Maloney Medical Assocs., Inc., 704 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 1997) (a defendant‑physician may testify as a fact witness about his own experience)
- Passarello v. Grumbine, 29 A.3d 1158 (Pa. Super. 2011) (expert testimony establishes standard of care in malpractice cases)