Bokma v. RaglinBokma v. Raglin
Rendered on the 25th day of March, 2022.
JACK J. LAH, Atty. Reg. No. 0078474, 3033 Kettering Boulevard, Suite 213, Dayton, Ohio 45439 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant
TIMOTHY P. HEATHER, Atty. Reg. No. 0002776, 300 Pike Street, Suite 500, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Attorney for Defendants-Appellees
EPLEY, J.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On February 1, 2018, Bokma was involved in a car crash in which the at-fault driver was uninsured. As a result of the crash, Bokma was injured, and her vehicle was damaged. Her uninsured motorist carrier was Allstate.
{¶ 3} On January 15, 2020, after unsuccessful settlement negotiations with Allstate, Bokma filed suit against Damion T. Raglin (the driver of the car), Allstate, and The Rawlings Company, LLC, and alleged that she suffered “severe and рermanent injuries” as well as “great pain and suffering, both physical and emotional[.]” As the suit progressed, the parties came to an impasse regarding medical records. Allstate insisted that Bokma authorize the release of all her medical records dating back to early 2008. According to the briefs, Bokma objectеd to that request on the basis that the records would contain information about psychological and psychiatric treatment as well as physical conditions that were not at issue in the suit. According to Bokma, some of the records would be privileged, and thus discovery would be inappropriate.
{¶ 4} On September 2, 2021, the triаl court issued an order requiring Bokma to sign all authorizations submitted by Allstate no later than September 8, 2021. She refused to sign, and instead, filed an affidavit claiming that she “did not suffer еmotional or
II. Discovery Dispute and Court Order
{¶ 5} In both her first and second assignments of error, Bokma argues that the trial court‘s order that she must sign medical authorizatiоns should be reversed. Bokma asserts that the trial court should have limited the discovery order to only those records causally and historically related to the lаwsuit. Practically speaking, she does not want to be made to turn over medical records that relate to mental health issues as she believes those to be privileged.
Final Appealable Order
{¶ 6} Both parties spend considerable time and effort in their briefs arguing about the appealability of the trial court‘s order, so before the merits оf the case can be decided, we must first determine whether it is properly before us.
{¶ 7} In general, trial court orders addressing discovery matters are not immediatеly appealable as they are interlocutory in nature. Miller v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015-Ohio-280, 27 N.E.3d 980, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.). The legislature, however, has carved out an exception to the general rule when it cоmes to the disclosure of privileged matters.
{¶ 8} It is well established that “an order requiring the production of information protected by * * * privilege causes harm and prejudice that inherently cannot be meaningfully and effectively remedied by a later appeal.” Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, 151 Ohio St.3d 356, 2016-Ohio-8000, 89 N.E.3d 536, ¶ 2; Barrow v. The Living Word-Dayton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27935, 2018-Ohio-4641, ¶ 15; Harvey v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27470, 2017-Ohio-9226, ¶ 6. In that situation, where privileged information has been released, “the proverbial bell cannot be unrung.” Randall v. Cantwell Mach. Co., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-786, 2013-Ohio-2744, ¶ 7.
{¶ 9} Nevertheless, Allstate argues that because the order did not contain the
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court‘s order is properly before us.
Standard of Review
{¶ 12} Where a discovery dispute involves privilege, we are presented with a mixed question of law and fact. Whether the privilege statute applies is a question of law which we review de novo. Karimian-Dominique v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 2019-Ohio-2750, 139 N.E.3d 1237, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.). Whether spеcific medical records are “related causally or historically to physical or mental injuries that are relevant to the issues” is a factual issue which we review under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at ¶ 16. To constitute an abuse of discretion, a trial court‘s action must be arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionаble. Ojalvo v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 12 Ohio St.3d 230, 232, 466 N.E.2d 875 (1984).
Analysis
{¶ 13} Bokma‘s chief argument as to why the trial court erred in issuing the discovery order is that it was overly-broad and would force her to disclose psychological/psychiatric records that are privileged.
{¶ 14} Under
{¶ 16} In Bokma‘s complaint, filed on January 15, 2020, she alleged (in her first claim for relief) that “[a]s a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, * * * [she] sustained injuries and damages as follows: (a) Severe and permanent injuries; (b) Great pain and suffering, both physical and emotional[.]” (Emphasis added.) Based on the plain language of her complaint, Bokma was seeking redress for both physical and emotional pain and suffering caused by the crash with Damion Raglin, the uninsured driver. The fact that she explicitly stated that she suffered both physical and emotional pain and suffering waived her doctor-patient privilege for medical records of both the physical and psychological/psychiatric varieties. Both categories of medical records were causally and historically related to the injuries claimed in the suit. Accordingly, Bokma‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
III. In Camera Review
{¶ 17} In her second assignment of error, Bokma alleges that the trial court
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 18} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
DONOVAN, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Jack J. Lah
Timothy P. Heather
Hon. Richard S. Skelton