Morawski v. Davis
2023 Ohio 1898
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- On July 4, 2017, Michael B. Davis intentionally drove into oncoming traffic and collided with Gregory Morawski’s car, killing Morawski; Davis was later convicted of murder and pled not guilty by reason of insanity in the criminal case.
- The decedent’s father, John E. Morawski (administrator), filed a wrongful-death civil suit against Davis (and Davis’s parents for negligent entrustment). Discovery deadlines were set and medical-record subpoenas were issued to two of Davis’s treating providers.
- Davis delayed responding to written discovery, refused to sign medical-authorizations, and did not timely move to quash or seek an in camera review of the subpoenaed records; he asserted physician–patient privilege only after the discovery cutoff.
- The trial court granted Morawski’s motions to compel and to enforce the subpoenas; Davis appealed solely arguing blanket physician–patient privilege under R.C. 2317.02(B).
- The appellate majority affirmed, holding the record was insufficient to find privilege attached to all requested materials because Davis failed to make a timely, particularized privilege claim or include the disputed documents for review; a dissent would have found the records privileged and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred ordering production of records subpoenaed from Davis’s treating physicians | Morawski: subpoenas seek relevant medical records; Davis waived privilege by making mental state an issue in his criminal case and by deposition testimony | Davis: all requested medical/psychiatric records are protected by the physician–patient privilege and no statutory exception or waiver applies | Affirmed: appellate majority found record insufficient to show privilege attached to the documents because Davis failed to timely assert and particularize the privilege or provide documents for in camera review; therefore he did not meet his burden to prevent disclosure |
| Whether waiver in a prior criminal case extends to this civil discovery | Morawski: prior insanity defense and testimony constitute waiver | Davis: waiver in one case does not carry to others | Majority: waiver in one case is limited to that case (following Hageman); the record lacks the deposition transcript so waiver cannot be established on appeal |
| Whether a blanket claim of physician–patient privilege applies to all communications in medical records | Morawski: challenged communications are not entirely privileged or were waived | Davis: every communication in the records is privileged | Majority: privilege attaches only to communications made for diagnosis/treatment and must be shown; cannot presume blanket privilege without record-specific proof |
| Whether procedures under Civ.R. 26 and Civ.R. 45 were followed and sufficient for appellate review | Morawski: discovery rules permit broad discovery and require party asserting privilege to describe withheld materials | Davis: argued privilege but did not comply with Civ.R. 26/45 requirements in a timely manner | Held: Davis failed to follow Civ.R. 26/45 (no timely motion to quash, no description of withheld documents, no in camera submission), so appellate review is limited and the trial court’s order stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Humphrey v. Riverside Methodist Hosp., 22 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 1986) (disclosure of confidential patient information treated as final appealable order)
- Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, 151 Ohio St.3d 356 (Ohio 2016) (discusses when trial-court discovery orders involving patient information are appealable)
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (Ohio 2010) (statutory physician–patient privilege is not absolute and waiver is limited)
- State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (privilege available only to communications made within physician–patient relationship)
- State v. Kutz, 87 Ohio App.3d 329 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (not every entry in a medical record is automatically privileged)
- State v. Hall, 141 Ohio App.3d 561 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (medical reports prepared for non-treatment purposes are not privileged)
- Calihan v. Fullen, 78 Ohio App.3d 266 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (test for asserting physician–patient privilege: communication, provider–patient relationship, and no waiver)