Pietrangelo v. Hudson, 136 N.E.3d 867

Pietrangelo (plaintiff), proceeding pro se, sued Hudson for negligence after a car collision alleging head, neck, and back injuries.
In discovery, Pietrangelo admitted prior injuries to the same areas (2005 fall, 2011 back strain, 2014 punch). Defendant Hudson sought his prior medical records and provided medical release authorizations for signature.
Pietrangelo refused to sign the authorizations, arguing (without supporting evidence) they were overly broad and would yield records not causally or historically related to his claims.
Hudson moved to compel; the trial court deferred resolution to a settlement conference, ordered Pietrangelo to sign the specific authorizations Hudson brought, and directed that failure to sign by a deadline would result in dismissal.
Pietrangelo neither sought a protective order nor requested an in camera review, and he did not place the actual authorizations into the trial or appellate record. He appealed the order compelling signatures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred in compelling Pietrangelo to sign medical authorizations (privilege waiver)	The order forces disclosure of privileged medical records not causally or historically related to his claims and lacks in camera review	Hudson sought records relevant to injuries plaintiff placed at issue; plaintiff waived privilege by suing and admitting prior related injuries	Affirmed — plaintiff waived privilege to records related to his claimed injuries; court did not err in ordering signatures given plaintiff failed to justify withholding records
Whether the authorizations were overbroad	Signing would release records dating back to 2005 and include irrelevant information	Plaintiff admitted injuries dating to 2005; his complaint broadly put physical and mental condition at issue	Overbreadth objection rejected because plaintiff gave no factual showing the records were unrelated and he admitted relevant prior injuries
Whether appellate record deficiency and procedural defaults defeat plaintiff’s challenge	Pietrangelo contends authorizations weren’t in record and court abused discretion without reviewing them in camera	It was plaintiff’s burden to make authorizations part of record or seek protective/in camera review; defendant had no obligation to prove privilege applies	Affirmed — appellant failed to preserve/produce authorizations or present factual basis for privilege; appellate court declines relief

Robb v. Smallwood, 165 Ohio App.3d 385 (4th Dist. 2005) (pro se litigants may receive reasonable procedural latitude but are not exempt from rules)
Wooten v. Westfield Ins. Co., 181 Ohio App.3d 59 (8th Dist. 2009) (filing suit placing condition at issue waives physician–patient privilege as to records causally or historically related to claimed injuries)
Medical Mutual of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2009) (statutory physician–patient privilege generally protects medical records from disclosure)
Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1989) (before in camera review for privilege, movant must show a factual basis supporting a good-faith belief that privilege review may reveal applicability)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (appellant bears burden to show error by reference to matters in the record)