979 F. Supp. 2d 780
E.D. Mich.2013Background
- Personal injury action arising from a Detroit-area automobile accident involving a semi-truck; plaintiff claims brain and other injuries.
- Plaintiff Antoinne Thomas sues defendant Danny Myslik (Canadian citizen) under alienage diversity jurisdiction; Michigan no-fault Act governs damages.
- Plaintiff asserts physician-patient privilege under Michigan law; defendants seek medical records and interviews to defend the case.
- HIPAA governs disclosure of protected health information; the parties dispute whether ex parte interviews are permissible.
- Court considers HIPAA preemption of state law and whether a qualified protective order can regulate interviews and disclosures.
- Court may grant a qualified protective order allowing ex parte interviews with safeguards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HIPAA permits ex parte interviews with treating physicians under a qualified protective order | Thomas argues HIPAA does not authorize ex parte interviews; formal discovery should suffice | Myslik argues ex parte interviews are permissible with a protective order to safeguard privacy | Qualified protective order allowed ex parte interviews with safeguards |
| Whether HIPAA preempts Michigan physician-patient privilege in this context | HIPAA preempts state law that would automatically waive privilege upon filing suit | Michigan privilege is superseded when HIPAA protections are more stringent | HIPAA supersedes Michigan privilege for more stringent protections |
| Whether a qualified protective order should be issued and its scope | Defendants should be limited to formal discovery rather than ex parte interviews | Ex parte interviews are necessary for timely access to relevant medical witnesses | Court grants in part; allows subpoenas for records and limited ex parte interviews under order with safeguards |
| What disclosures and conduct are permitted under the order | Protects patient privacy and limits use of information outside litigation | Allows access to relevant records and witnesses for defense | Order permits defined interviews and prohibits disclosure outside litigation; requires notices and destruction at end |
| Whether written communications and use of information from interviews are permissible | Written communications and broad use should be restricted | Written notes and interviews aid discovery | Written communications allowed; information may be used for litigation within order constraints |
Key Cases Cited
- Holman v. Rasak, 486 Mich. 429, 785 N.W.2d 98 (2010) (Mich. Sup. Ct. 2010) (discusses physician-patient privilege and waivers under state law)
- Law v. Zuckerman, 307 F. Supp. 2d 705 (D. Md. 2004) (D. Md. 2004) (HIPAA privacy protections and preemption framework)
- Domako v. Rowe, 438 Mich. 347, 475 N.W.2d 30 (1991) (Mich. Sup. Ct. 1991) (Michigan privilege waiver upon bringing personal injury action)
- Isidore Steiner, DPM, PC v. Bonanni, 292 Mich. App. 265, 807 N.W.2d 902 (2011) (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (HIPAA preemption and state vs federal privacy protections)
- In re Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Prod. Liab. Litig., 890 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (N.D. Ill. 2012) (courts may tailor protective orders to permit ex parte interviews with safeguards)