Recently, Ted Pashos and Scott Simpson successfully prevented the
disclosure of their client’s confidential medical records to the other
party in their lawsuit. Mr. Pashos and Mr. Simpson received a favorable
ruling from the Missouri Supreme court in the case of State ex rel
William Stinson v The Honorable Ted House #SC90364.
Facts of the Case
In late summer 2004, William Stinson was involved in an automobile
collision that resulted in a lawsuit being filed against Mr. Stinson and
his parents and their automobile dealership. As part of discovery, the
Plaintiff requested Mr. Stinson’s confidential medical records.
Although, Mr. Stinson objected, the trial court ordered him to release
all confidential medical and psychological records pertaining to
treatment he had received for alcohol, drug, or substance abuse problems
dating back to 1990. In response Mr. Stinson’s lawyers, Scott Simpson
and Ted Pashos, appealed the trial court’s ruling all the way to the
Missouri Supreme Court.
Medical Confidentiality And Physician-Patient Privilege
The issue of medical confidentiality is at least as old as the
Hippocratic Oath:
Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in
connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not
to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such
should be kept secret.
The doctor-patient privilege is codified in Missouri by section
491.060.2 of RSMo 2000. The statute provides that a licensed physician
or psychologist is “incompetent to testify…concerning any information
which he or she may have acquired from any patient while attending the
patient in a professional character, and which information was necessary
to enable him or her to prescribe and provide treatment for such patient
as a physician….” This doctor-patient privilege “applies to medical
records and all aspects of discovery.” State ex rel. Dean v. Cunningham,
182 S.W.3d 561, 567 (Mo. banc 2006).
The Courts have long ruled there is a public good in not discouraging
patients from being open and honest with their doctors. The more honest
a patient is, generally the easier he or she can be treated. There are
exceptions, when a patient has a sexually transmitted disease, for
instance, but Mr. Stinson’s case is not affected by any of those
exceptions.
Ruling of the Court
The Missouri State Supreme Court found that Mr. Stinson would face some
possibility of embarrassment and invasion of his privacy were his
medical records to be released. This possible embarrassment and privacy
loss could be a deterrent to future patients in their medical dealings.
Additionally, Mr. Stinson’s situation is directly covered by Missouri
Statute, which prohibits the medical records from being forcibly
released.
The Missouri State Supreme Court ruled that the trial court should not
have ordered Mr. Stinson to authorize disclosure of his medical records.
If you need an attorney to represent you in a civil lawsuit or in front
of the Missouri State Supreme Court, contact Ted Pashos or Scott Simpson
of Niedner, Bodeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox and Pashos in St. Charles,
Missouri.