Szpak v. Inyang
290 Mich. App. 711
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- This medical malpractice action involves a motion for a qualified protective order to govern discovery and protect health information under HIPAA.
- Defendants sought to prohibit disclosure of health information and to obtain a protective framework that included ex parte interviews with plaintiffs’ treating physicians.
- The trial court imposed additional conditions: plaintiffs’ counsel must receive notice of interview timing/locations and may attend the interviews.
- Defendants appealed the order, contending the additional conditions were an abuse of discretion and not justified by HIPAA or any demonstrated risk.
- The court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding the § 1(D) and § 1(E) conditions were not properly tied to HIPAA or supported by evidence; § II became moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ex parte interview conditions were proper | Szpak argues conditions protect privacy, not intimidation. | Najem, et al. contend conditions ensure HIPAA compliance and discovery efficiency. | Abuse of discretion; conditions reversed and order remanded |
| Whether HIPAA permits the challenged conditions | HIPAA does not justify broad ex parte interference by plaintiffs’ counsel. | HIPAA-compliance necessitates protective orders; ex parte interviews are permissible under Michigan law. | Authorized under Michigan law; but conditions must be justified independently |
| Whether the court could impose § 1(D) and § 1(E) absent demonstrated need | No demonstrated danger or intimidation justifying attendance/notice by counsel. | These measures facilitate secure handling of PHI and orderly discovery. | Abuse of discretion; rejected as to these provisions |
| Scope of protective order with HIPAA focus | Order primarily addresses PHI disclosure; additional limits exceed HIPAA scope. | Protective order comprising discovery efficiency and privacy safeguards is appropriate. | Order partly reversed because extra conditions were unauthorized |
Key Cases Cited
- Holman v Rasak, 486 Mich 429 (2010) (ex parte interviews permitted; HIPAA does not preempt Michigan law)
- G P Enterprises, Inc v Jackson Nat’l Life Ins Co, 202 Mich App 557 (1993) (ex parte interviews with treating physicians generally proper)
- Donkers v Kovach, 277 Mich App 366 (2007) (error of law may lead to abuse of discretion)
- Herald Co v Tax Tribunal, 258 Mich App 78 (2003) (protective order appropriate to protect trade secrets)
- Bloomfield Charter Twp v Oakland Co Clerk, 253 Mich App 1 (2002) (protective order proper in absence of demonstrated relevance)