New York court clarifies patient confidentiality protections
Seeking information about patients treated in emergency departments
violates the physician-patient relationship, the ruling says.
By
Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. Nov. 18, 2002.
Additional information
Patients and physicians in New York last month won a round in keeping
medical records private when the state's highest court ruled that
hospitals can invoke the physician-patient privilege when law enforcement
agencies go after medical records in an attempt to identify criminals.
The case, New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. v. Morgenthau,
doesn't establish any new protection, per se. The ruling applied existing
thresholds for when a physician must turn over information.
But the decision is a victory because the New York Court of Appeals
recognized the importance of the privilege, said Donald Moy, general
counsel for the Medical Society of the State of New York.
"I would have been concerned if the court took a narrow view of the
law," he said. "It would have chipped away at the privilege."
The case originated after a 1998 incident in which an assailant --
identified only as a Caucasian man in his 30s or early 40s who may have
been bleeding -- stabbed a man to death in Manhattan. The suspect was
still at-large more than two years later, according to court records. The
district attorney believed the man may have gone to a local hospital for
treatment and subpoenaed 23 hospitals, including four owned by the New
York City Health and Hospitals Corp.
The subpoenas asked for "any and all records" of people who fit the
man's description, including name, date of birth, address, telephone
number, Social Security number, but not "information acquired by a
physician, registered nurse or licensed practical nurse in attending said
patient in a professional capacity and which was necessary to enable said
doctor or nurse to act in that capacity," according to court records.
NYCHHC refused to turn over emergency department triage logs, saying it
would breach patient confidentiality. The district attorney claimed the
subpoenas didn't hurt privileges because they didn't ask for information
acquired by medical diagnosis, medical treatment or medical expertise,
which the law protects.
The court agreed with the hospital: "The challenged subpoenas define
the class of records sought by the 'cause or potential cause' of injury.
Thus, the subpoenas inevitably call for a medical determination as to the
causation 'through the application of professional skill or knowledge.' It
is precisely this intrusion into the physician-patient relationship that
[the law] seeks to prevent."
Back to top.
Copyright 2002 American Medical Association. All
rights reserved.