| Jackson v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02712 [61 AD3d 1166] |
| April 9, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Kevin Jackson, Respondent, v Jamaica Hospital Medical Center,Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Kevin Jackson, Dannemora, respondent pro se.
Kane, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dawson, J.), entered April 17, 2008 inClinton County, which, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion to compel discovery.
This civil appeal concerns plaintiff's motion to compel discovery of limited informationcontained in the medical records of a person he was convicted of murdering. Plaintiffcommenced a civil action in Queens County against defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center,where his victim was transported by ambulance after being shot, and a record-keeping employee,alleging that defendants fraudulently or negligently created the victim's medical records, some ofwhich were apparently admitted into evidence at plaintiff's criminal trial. Plaintiff claimed thatdefendants' medical records were inconsistent with certain official reports (the medicalexaminer's report and police reports) regarding the time of the victim's death, which contributedto plaintiff's criminal conviction. Supreme Court (Hart, J.) denied plaintiff's motion to compeldisclosure of defendant's medical records for the victim based upon plaintiff's lack of standing,and the Second Department affirmed (Jackson v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 37 AD3d 542 [2007]).
Prior to that affirmance, plaintiff commenced this second fraud action against defendants inClinton County, again alleging that certain purported inconsistencies between other officialdocuments and defendant's medical records for the victim, which plaintiff claims were [*2]fraudulently made, deprived him of the ability to present a viabledefense at his criminal trial. Plaintiff filed an amended notice of discovery (see CPLR3120) seeking limited "non-medical information" in defendants' medical records regarding thevictim, relating strictly to "time data" for the date of the victim's death, namely "time of all calls"to Jamaica Hospital, "time of arrival" at its emergency room and "time of death." Plaintiffrequested that all confidential and privileged material be redacted (see CPLR 4504 [a]).
Defendants did not respond to plaintiff's discovery demand, so plaintiff moved to compel aresponse (see CPLR 3124). Jamaica Hospital cross-moved to deny that relief. SupremeCourt (Dawson, J.) granted plaintiff's motion and denied Jamaica Hospital's cross motion.Jamaica Hospital now appeals.
Jamaica Hospital has not demonstrated that res judicata applies to this motion. Under thatdoctrine, a prior valid final judgment on the merits precludes litigation between the same partiesof any claim that was or could have been raised in the prior action (see Landau, P.C. v LaRossa, Mitchell &Ross, 11 NY3d 8, 12 [2008]; Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d343, 347 [1999]; Kinsman vTuretsky, 21 AD3d 1246, 1246-1247 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 702 [2005]).Supreme Court, Queens County merely denied plaintiff's unopposed motion to compeldisclosure[FN*]due to lack of standing, which is not a determination "on the merits" (see Landau, P.C. vLaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 NY3d at 13-14 and n 3). Likewise, the record does notindicate that there has been a "final judgment" rendered in the Queens County matter (Parkerv Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 347). Thus, Jamaica Hospital has not shown thatthe Queens County order precludes plaintiff's present motion to compel discovery.
The documents that plaintiff seeks, as redacted, are not privileged and must be disclosed.Jamaica Hospital, as the party objecting to disclosure, bore the burden of proving its assertionthat the material sought is privileged under CPLR 4504 (a) and the federal Health InsurancePortability and Accountability Act (42 USC § 1320d et seq. [hereinafter HIPAA];see Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]; see also Dillenbeck v Hess, 73NY2d 278, 287 [1989]). The physician-patient privilege "prohibits disclosure of any informationacquired by a physician 'in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which wasnecessary to enable [the physician] to act in that capacity' " (Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2dat 284, quoting CPLR 4504 [a]; see State of New York v General Elec. Co., 201 AD2d802, 802-803 [1994]). The very narrow information sought by plaintiff—regarding whencertain events occurred, as documented in the victim's medical records on the date of hisdeath—was not information necessary to the victim's medical treatment; it was merelydocumented facts regarding time data that would be obvious to a layperson (see Williams vRoosevelt Hosp., 66 NY2d 391, 396 [1985]; Henry v Lewis, 102 AD2d 430, 437[1984] [dates and times of treatment not privileged]; see also Matter of Grand JuryInvestigation in N.Y. County, 98 NY2d 525, 530 [2002]; People v Elysee, 49 AD3d 33, 37-39 [2007], affd 12 NY3d100 [2009]; Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Dec. 14, 1984, 113AD2d 49, 55 [1985], affd 69 NY2d 232 [1987], cert denied 482 US 928 [1987]).Hence, the information was not privileged under state law.[*3]
HIPAA regulates disclosure of "protected healthinformation," which includes "individually identifiable health information," defined as healthinformation that "[i]s created or received by a health care provider . . . and [r]elatesto past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual[,] the provisionof health care to an individual [or payment therefor]," and identifies the patient or whichreasonably could be so used (45 CFR 160.103; see 42 USC § 1320d [6] [B]; Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393,413 [2007]). The time data sought by plaintiff cannot be characterized as protected healthinformation, as it has no apparent connection to the victim's physical condition or medical care.As Jamaica Hospital failed to demonstrate that the circumscribed redacted time data isprivileged, Supreme Court properly denied its cross motion and granted plaintiff's motion tocompel a response to his amended notice for discovery.
Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.
Footnote *: Notably, the motion papers inthe Queens County action are not in the record. However, the appeal of the motion now before usis also merely one regarding discovery, and does not concern a dispositive motion groundedupon either lack of standing or res judicata principles.