Ward v. Summa Health System, 128 Ohio St. 3d 212

Ward suffered hepatitis B exposure during a May 2006 heart valve replacement at Summa Health System; Summa notified him five months later.
Ward and his wife sued Summa and John Does 1–6, alleging medical malpractice and other claims; they sought discovery to identify the exposure source and extended Civ.R. 10(D)(2) affidavit deadlines accordingly.
In December 2007, Ward sought to depose Debski, Debski moved for a protective order asserting physician-patient privilege over his own medical information.
The trial court granted the protective order, rejecting Ward’s attempt to obtain Debski’s personal medical information about hepatitis B.
Summa later moved to dismiss for lack of an affidavit of merit; the trial court granted extensions, then dismissed without prejudice for Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(d) and Civ.R. 41(B)(1).
Court of appeals reversed, holding the information sought could be discovery from Debski as a nonparty and that privileged status did not bar discovery of Debski’s personal medical information; this court granted discretionary review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2317.02(B) physician-patient privilege bars discovery of a nonparty physician's personal medical information.	Ward argues privilege does not block discovery of the physician’s own medical info relevant to exposure.	Debski contends the privilege protects his own medical information from discovery.	No absolute bar; privilege does not shield a patient’s own medical information when relevant to the matter.
Whether the physician-patient privilege applies to a patient who is a nonparty seeking information about an exposure source in a medical-malpractice case.	Ward asserts the nonparty status of Debski does not prevent discovery of his own medical info if relevant.	Debski relies on privilege and nonparty status to shield his information.	Privilege does not prevent discovery of the patient’s own medical information when relevant to the case.
What standard governs review of privilege and discovery disputes involving nonparties in Ohio civil cases.	Ward seeks de novo review given privilege concerns and broad relevancy under Civ.R. 26.	Debski argues traditional abuse-of-discretion review applies unless privilege is involved.	Privilege issues are reviewed de novo; discovery disputes remain subject to general Civ.R. 26 rules.

Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (1994) (liberal discovery doctrine under Civ.R. 26)
R.C. 2317.02, — (—) (physician-patient privilege statutory framework and exceptions)
Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399 (2009) (nonparty medical information; privilege scope and exceptions in discovery)
Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181 (2009) (patient as exclusive holder of physician-patient privilege; nonparty discovery context)
State Med. Bd. v. Miller, 44 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (foundational description of physician-patient privilege)
State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368 (2008) (statutory language cannot be read to create broad exceptions)