Palm v. Holocker, 92 N.E.3d 615

Plaintiff Scarlett Palm sued defendant Ruben Holocker for pedestrian injuries after Holocker’s vehicle struck her; Holocker admitted contact but denied liability and asserted comparative-fault defenses.
During discovery, Plaintiff served Rule 213 motor-vehicle interrogatories; Holocker disclosed he required a physician’s letter to drive for diabetic reasons but objected to interrogatories seeking names/addresses of medical providers and treatment history.
Holocker’s counsel (contemnor Karl Bayer) asserted the statutory physician-patient privilege (735 ILCS 5/8-802) and HIPAA protections; Plaintiff moved to compel and subpoenaed medical records under a court-issued HIPAA order.
The trial court compelled responses, ordered production, and held Bayer in civil contempt ($5/day) after Bayer refused to produce the information. Bayer appealed the contempt order.
The appellate court reviewed de novo whether the statutory physician-patient privilege applies and whether the contempt was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statutory physician-patient privilege is waived whenever a defendant’s physical or mental condition is relevant to the litigation	Palm: Section 8-802(4) applies where the patient’s physical or mental condition is relevant; privilege should be construed narrowly so relevant medical information is discoverable	Bayer/Holocker: Section 8-802(4) applies only when the patient affirmatively places health at issue; mere relevance or plaintiff allegations do not waive the privilege	Court: Privilege is not waived by mere relevance or plaintiff allegations; defendant must affirmatively place health in issue to invoke the exception (section 8-802(4) inapplicable here)
Whether the contempt sanction for refusing to comply with the discovery order should be upheld	Palm: Production was proper because defendant’s vision/health were relevant to liability	Bayer/Holocker: Contempt was invited to test an improper order protecting privacy; refusal was in good faith to defend privilege	Court: Contempt vacated — Bayer’s challenge was a good-faith effort to obtain legal interpretation; underlying discovery order reversed because privilege protected the records

Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60 (clarifies that discovery orders may be tested via contempt proceedings)
Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Int’l Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 144 Ill. 2d 178 (addresses review of discovery orders tied to contempt findings)
People ex rel. Dep’t of Prof. Regulation v. Manos, 202 Ill. 2d 563 (explains purposes of physician-patient privilege: encourage candor and protect privacy)
Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill. 2d 47 (statutory evidentiary privilege and exceptions are questions of law reviewed de novo)
Kraima v. Ausman, 365 Ill. App. 3d 530 (section 8-802(4) applies only where the patient affirmatively places physical condition in issue)
Pritchard v. SwedishAmerican Hosp., 191 Ill. App. 3d 388 (medical records constitute privileged patient treatment information)