State ex rel. BNSF Railway Co. v. Neill
356 S.W.3d 169
Mo.2011Background
- BNSF petitions for a writ of mandamus to lift a protective order that barred discovery of Dr. Rao’s medical records.
- The trial court refused to permit discovery of Rao’s psychiatric records, stating they were not relevant to plaintiff Patton’s physical injuries.
- The court held that psychiatric records are generally not discoverable where no psychiatric injury is claimed, but this case involves causation theories tied to prescription medications.
- BNSF argues Rao’s treatment records could illuminate causation of Patton’s injuries, not just damages, under Rule 56.01.
- This Court holds the trial court abused its discretion by denying discovery entirely and contemplates protective orders (e.g., in camera review, limited use) to address misuse.
- The writ is made permanent, with instructions to consider a narrow, protective, causation-focused discovery regime and perhaps permit additional discovery if appropriately limited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether psychiatric records can be discoverable for causation when no psychiatric injury is claimed | Patton argues records are irrelevant to physical injuries. | BNSF contends records may reveal causation-related information. | Yes; records may be discoverable for causation with limits. |
| Whether Rule 56.01 permits discovery of medical records not privileged if reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence | Discovery should be limited to damages, not causation. | Records can lead to admissible causation evidence. | Yes; materials may be discoverable if reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. |
| Whether the trial court could protect against misuse by en camera review or other limiting orders instead of denying discovery | Protective measures cannot salvage discovery; denial is proper. | Protective orders can adequately limit use of records. | protective orders appropriate; discovery should not be categorically denied. |
| Whether the trial court’s initial broad discovery request was permissible | Overbreadth invalidates the request. | Broad initial requests may be narrowed by proper proceedings. | Ultimately, discovery could be allowed under proper narrowing and protections. |
| Whether mandamus is proper to address alleged discovery abuse or discretion | Discretion should be respected; mandamus not warranted. | Trial court abused discretion by denying potentially relevant causation evidence. | Mandamus proper to remedy abuse of discretion in denying relevant discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dean v. Cunningham, 182 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2006) (psychiatric evidence rarely relevant to garden-variety emotional distress)
- State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr, 831 S.W.2d 926 (Mo. banc 1992) (discovery may lead to admissible evidence; not required to be admissible itself)
- State ex rel. McNutt v. Keet, 432 S.W.2d 597 (Mo. banc 1968) (protective orders permissible to limit production of medical records)
- State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Messina, 71 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. banc 2002) (discovery discretion to be exercised with careful consideration)
- Furlong Cos., Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. banc 2006) (mandamus requires a clear, unequivocal right)
- Palmer v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 311 S.W.3d 843 (Mo. App. 2010) (elements of negligence under FELA require causation showing)