Mertis, B. v. Oh Appeal of: Oh, M.D.
31 MAP 2023
Pa.Jun 18, 2024Background
- The appeal involves Bobbi Ann Mertis and Joseph Mertis (plaintiffs) against Dr. Dong-Joon Oh, multiple entities including North American Partners in Anesthesia, and Wilkes-Barre General Hospital (defendants), regarding alleged improper conduct in the defense of a medical malpractice suit.
- The legal issue centers on whether a law firm can concurrently represent multiple treating physicians of a patient-plaintiff in a malpractice action and obtain confidential medical information without explicit consent or formal discovery.
- Rule 4003.6 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure governs discovery of information from a treating physician, generally requiring patient consent or authorized discovery.
- Attorneys associated with the law firm Scanlon Howley concurrently represented Dr. Oh and Dr. Kim, both treating physicians of the plaintiff, without obtaining plaintiff's written consent for sharing medical information.
- The Superior Court held that the law firm's conduct violated Rule 4003.6, and this was affirmed by the Supreme Court's concurring opinion.
- The concurring opinion stresses the importance of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (particularly Rules 1.7 and 1.10) on imputed conflicts and attorney-client loyalty when interpreting procedural rules affecting attorney conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a law firm may concurrently represent multiple treating physicians of the same patient and share confidential information without consent | Such representation violates Rule 4003.6 and jeopardizes the confidentiality of medical information | Rule 4003.6 allows law firms to communicate with any treating physician who is a client without restrictions; no violation occurs | Court held such concurrent representation violates Rule 4003.6 due to imputed conflict of interest |
| Whether ethical rules regarding conflicts and imputation (Pa.R.Prof.C. 1.7 & 1.10) should inform the interpretation of Rule 4003.6 | Ethical principles should guide interpretation to protect patient confidentiality | The law firm’s reading of Rule 4003.6 makes ethics rules irrelevant to law firm representation of treating physicians | Court adopted the view that ethical rules do inform and limit the interpretation of Rule 4003.6 |
| Whether the information acquired from one physician may be used in defense of another without consent or discovery | Such use circumvents discovery rules and violates patient’s rights | Use is justified if the physician is a client under the law firm exception | The court ruled such use is improper absent patient consent or formal discovery |
| Whether screening within a firm could cure the conflict allowing representation | Not permitted under current rules; conflict of interest remains | Screening procedures could prevent conflict, allowing firm’s representation | Court held screening cannot cure this type of conflict under Rule 1.10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Synthes USA HQ, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 289 A.3d 846 (Pa. 2023) (explains how Rules of Professional Conduct inform statutory and procedural rules regarding attorney-client relationships)