Wellstar Health System, Inc. v. Jordan
293 Ga. 12
| Ga. | 2013Background
- This case concerns production of transcripts of ex parte physician interviews conducted under a qualified protective order in a medical malpractice action.
- Wellstar sought to interview non-party providers; the protective order limited use and allowed transcription if requested.
- Jordan moved to compel production of the transcripts; the trial court ordered production without in-camera review, treating the transcripts as non-protected work product.
- Jordan argued HIPAA requires production of transcripts containing protected health information; Wellstar argued HIPAA does not override discovery rules.
- The Court held HIPAA does not require production; the protective order did not by its text compel production; transcripts are attorney work product; remand required for in-camera review and to address waiver and protection—case vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIPAA requires production of transcripts? | Jordan: HIPAA requires production of PHI in transcripts. | Wellstar: HIPAA does not compel production of work product-bearing PHI. | HIPAA does not require production. |
| Did the protective order obligate production of transcripts? | Jordan: order implicitly required transcript production. | Wellstar: order silent on automatic production to adversary. | Order silent; not a production mandate; remand for proper safeguards. |
| Are the transcripts protected work product? | Jordan: transcripts may be discoverable under substantial need. | Wellstar: transcripts are work product protected. | Transcripts are work product; remand to assess waiver and in-camera review. |
| Remedies and further proceedings? | Jordan: need for access under protections. | Wellstar: protectiveness should limit disclosure. | Remand for in-camera examination and to determine waiver and production scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Wellstar Health Sys., Inc., 288 Ga. 336 (Ga. 2010) (protective orders and HIPAA compliance in ex parte interviews; safeguards available)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947) (attorney work product protection and preparation for trial)
- McKinnon v. Smock, 264 Ga. 375 (Ga. 1994) (work product protection limits and need for findings)
- McKesson HBOC v. Adler, 254 Ga. App. 500 (Ga. App. 2002) (waiver and necessity showing for discovery of work product)
- Tender Loving Health Care Svcs. of Ga. v. Ehrlich, 318 Ga. App. 560 (Ga. App. 2012) (disapproved view that interview questions do not implicate work product)