265 P.3d 417
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Riddles sued Phoenix Children’s Hospital (PCH) and nurse Teraji for medical malpractice over Alesha’s tracheal feeding tube injury.
- Alesha was heavily treated at PCH over months by multiple physicians and personnel; PCH employed several treating clinicians.
- Riddles moved to bar communications between PCH and its counsel and PCH employees who treated Alesha, apart from those alleged liable.
- PCH sought ex parte communications with Dr. Pearl (a PCH surgeon) for deposition preparation.
- Trial court denied PCH’s motion; later, the court allowed separate counsel for Dr. Pearl if retained.
- Arizona courts have long protected physician-patient confidences and limited implied waivers; the core issue is whether hospital-employer relationships affect communications with treating physicians
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duquette bars ex parte hospital communications with treating employees. | Duquette applies to treating physicians regardless of employer. | Duquette does not apply when treating physicians are hospital employees. | Duquette does not apply; ex parte hospital communications are permissible. |
| Whether treating physicians employed by a corporate defendant are subject to physician-patient privilege limitations. | Privilege and confidentiality should restrict employer access. | Employer-employee relationship allows information sharing with the hospital. | Employer-employee relationship permits discussion; no automatic wall from privilege. |
| Whether the ruling rests on implied waiver or on employer-employee relationship. | Implied waiver limits apply to treating physicians regardless of employment. | Knowledge arises from employer-employee relationship, not implied waiver. | Rule does not hinge on implied waiver; it arises from the employment relationship. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duquette v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 269 (Ariz. App. 1989) (ex parte communications with treating physicians barred under physician-patient privilege)
- Bain v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 331 (Ariz. 1986) (implied waiver extends to specific condition placed at issue)
- Samaritan Found. v. Goodfarb, 176 Ariz. 497 (Ariz. 1993) (knowledge of corporate agent imputed to the corporation)
- Fridena v. Evans, 127 Ariz. 516 (Ariz. 1980) (corporation bound by agent’s knowledge within scope of authority)
- Lewin v. Jackson, 108 Ariz. 27 (Ariz. 1972) (physician-patient privilege purpose is to encourage disclosure)