Renfer, M. v. Kopena, S.
3554 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- February 2, 2015 rear-end motor vehicle collision; appellees (Renfers) alleged injuries from appellant Kopena’s negligent driving.
- Kopena admitted taking prescribed Suboxone within 48 hours before the crash; no DUI charges were filed after field sobriety tests.
- Renfers subpoenaed Kopena’s treating physician, Dr. Joseph Pinciotti, for deposition after obtaining medical records; Kopena moved for a protective order and Dr. Pinciotti failed to appear for a scheduled deposition.
- Trial court granted Renfers’ motion to compel Pinciotti’s deposition, limited discovery to Suboxone use and prescribing, denied the protective order, and ordered Kopena to pay counsel fees and costs.
- Kopena appealed, arguing physician–patient privilege/statutory protection (42 Pa.C.S. § 5929) barred disclosure; court considered jurisdictional limits on appeals from discovery and sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Renfer) | Defendant's Argument (Kopena) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying protective order and compelling Dr. Pinciotti’s deposition | Discovery into Kopena’s Suboxone use and Dr. Pinciotti’s prescribing is relevant to causation and punitive damages | Physician–patient privilege protects communications and would "blacken" Kopena’s character; discovery into medical history is unwarranted | Affirmed: deposition compelled; scope limited to Suboxone use and prescribing; no privilege barred disclosure |
| Whether Renfers may use the deposition in further proceedings | Deposition is discoverable and relevant to claims | Using deposition would unfairly prejudice Kopena by revealing protected health information | Court permitted deposition; appellate review limited to privilege question; use in further proceedings allowed within limited scope |
| Whether further discovery into Kopena’s broader medical history is permitted | Further discovery limited to Suboxone-related records only | Broader probing of medical history is protected by privilege and irrelevant | Trial court limited discovery to Suboxone use and prescribing; scope upheld |
| Whether sanctions against Kopena for failing to attend deposition were proper | Sanctions appropriate for noncompliance and failure to attend subpoenaed deposition | Sanctions improper because Kopena asserted privilege and filed protective order | Sanctions order not appealable interlocutorily; appellate court dismissed that portion for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc., 950 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discovery orders generally nonfinal and unappealable)
- Baranowski v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 688 A.2d 207 (Pa. Super. 1997) (discovery sanction orders interlocutory until final judgment)
- Farrell v. Regola, 150 A.3d 87 (Pa. Super. 2016) (refusal to apply claimed privilege is appealable as a collateral order)
- Grimminger v. Maitra, 887 A.2d 276 (Pa. Super. 2005) (physician–patient privilege limited to patient communications that would ‘blacken the character’)
- Jones v. Faust, 852 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Super. 2004) (privilege covers only information that would offend privilege rationale)
- Miller Oral Surgery, Inc. v. Dinello, 611 A.2d 232 (Pa. Super. 1992) (phrase ‘tend to blacken the character’ construed narrowly)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 821 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2003) (physician’s observations and diagnosis are not protected communications under privilege)