Meier v. Awaad
832 N.W.2d 251
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Minor plaintiffs sue Dr. Awaad and his related entities for alleged intentional misdiagnosis to boost billings, leading to unnecessary medications and tests.
- Plaintiffs assert claims including fraud, medical malpractice, negligent credentialing, negligent supervision, battery, conspiracy, and MCPA violation.
- During discovery, plaintiffs subpoena MDCH for Medicaid patients treated by Awaad coded with epilepsy/seizure diagnoses; MDCH refused without court order.
- Trial court ordered disclosure to identify putative class members and witnesses, and held disclosure would not violate HIPAA; a protective order limited access and uses.
- Defendants appeal the orders, arguing physician-patient privilege and privacy protections bar disclosure, and challenging class-certification considerations.
- Appellate court reverses, holding that MCL 600.2157 physician-patient privilege (per Dorris and Massachusetts Mut Life) bars third-party disclosure of nonparty patient identities and diagnoses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MDCH disclosure violates the physician-patient privilege | Plaintiffs contend MDCH disclosure is discoverable for class-witness identification. | Awaad entities argue third-party MDCH disclosure breaches MCL 600.2157 and patient privacy. | Privilege prohibits disclosure; reversal warranted. |
| Is HIPAA a controlling or preemptive constraint on the discovery | HIPAA does not bar discovery with protective measures; information may be used for class planning. | HIPAA privacy protections bar such disclosure regardless of court order. | Michigan statute governs; HIPAA does not control here; privilege prevails. |
| Who can raise or defend the physician-patient privilege in this nonparty-disclosure context | Plaintiffs assert standing to challenge privilege on behalf of witnesses; MDCH not a provider. | Defendants argue trial court and defendants may raise privilege concerns; patients hold the privilege. | Nonparty patients’ privilege is protected; third-party disclosure cannot be compelled. |
| What remedy is appropriate for an improper disclosure of privileged information | Remedies may include continuing discovery, class-certification considerations. | Sanctions or disqualification are unwarranted given court-ordered disclosure error. | Return and destroy disclosed materials; exclude fruits of disclosure at trial; allow waivers by patients who choose to participate. |
| Can information obtained from MDCH be used for class certification analysis | Disclosed data could assist in certification and witness identification. | Privilege prevents use of nonparty patient data for certification analysis. | Exclude privileged information from class-certification considerations, except as to waiving patients who participate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hosp Corp, 460 Mich 26 (1999) (physician-patient privilege scope; confidentiality promotes full disclosure)
- Massachusetts Mut Life Ins Co v Bd of Trustees of Mich Asylum for the Insane, 178 Mich 193 (1913) (precludes indirect disclosure through third parties)
- Isidore Steiner, DPM, PC v Bonanni, 292 Mich App 265 (2011) (nonparty patient privacy considerations in discovery)
- Baker v Oakwood Hosp Corp, 239 Mich App 461 (2000) (standing and propriety of physician-patient privilege objections in discovery)
- Johnson v Detroit Med Ctr, 291 Mich App 165 (2010) (physician-patient privilege protects nonparty patient documents)