PHOENIX CHILDREN'S HOSP., INC. v. Grant
265 P.3d 417
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Riddles sue Phoenix Children's Hospital (PCH) and nurse for feeding-tube misplacement harming Alesha.
- Riddles seek to bar ex parte communications between defense counsel and PCH employees who treated Alesha, citing Duquette.
- Trial court grants and later denies PCH's motion to permit ex parte communications for Dr. Pearl's deposition.
- Court orders limited communications; injunctive discovery stay pending special action.
- Arizona Supreme Court clarifies Duquette does not apply where treating physicians are PCH employees, not independent physicians.
- Court vacates trial court orders; Duquette-based bar does not extend to hospital-employee treating physicians.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Duquette bar ex parte communications with hospital employees treating plaintiff? | Riddles: Duquette controls; ex parte communications are barred. | PCH: employees as hospital staff; privilege and corporate interests warrant access. | Duquette does not apply. |
| May hospital employees’ communications with employer be unrestricted due to employer-employee relationship? | Physician-patient privilege applies; safeguards exist, regardless of employment. | Employer-employee relationship allows intra-organizational communications to aid care. | Employer-employee communications permitted; Duquette does not constrain them in this context. |
| Does implied waiver extend to treating employees who are hospital staff when a medical malpractice action is brought? | Implied waiver could broaden to shield or reveal information improperly. | Waiver not the source of authority to discuss employees; employer relationship suffices. | Implied waiver not controlling; issue resolved on employer-employee basis. |
| Can communications within an organization be limited to avoid misuse of privileged information? | Broad limits protect patient confidentiality and prevent undermining claims. | Necessary functions (billing, risk management, legal services) should be within scope. | Within-organization communications permissible for appropriate functions; not unlimited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duquette v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 269, 778 P.2d 634 (App. 1989) (bar ex parte communications between defense counsel and plaintiff's treating physicians)
- Bain v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 331, 714 P.2d 824 (1990) (implied waiver extends to specific condition placed at issue)
- Samaritan Found. v. Goodfarb, 176 Ariz. 497, 862 P.2d 870 (1993) (corporate agent knowledge imputed to the corporation)
- Fridena v. Evans, 127 Ariz. 516, 622 P.2d 463 (1980) (agency knowledge rule; corporation bound by agent's knowledge within scope)
- Lewin v. Jackson, 108 Ariz. 27, 492 P.2d 406 (1972) (physician-patient privilege purpose to encourage disclosure)
- State ex rel. Udall v. Superior Court, 183 Ariz. 462, 904 P.2d 1286 (1995) (privilege must be strictly construed)