| DeLouise v S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09883 [79 AD3d 1092] |
| December 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael A. DeLouise, Respondent, v S.K.I. WholesaleBeer Corp. et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
—[*1] Everett J. Petersson, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Michael A. Serpico of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), datedMay 7, 2010, as denied those branches of their motion which were to compel the plaintiff toprovide compliant authorizations pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and AccountabilityAct of 1996 (42 USC § 1320d et seq.) for certain medical and hospital recordsrelating to his medical condition.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thosebranches of the defendants' motion which were to compel the plaintiff to provide compliantauthorizations pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42USC § 1320d et seq.) for certain medical and hospital records relating to hismedical condition are granted.
"[A] party must provide duly executed and acknowledged written authorizations for therelease of pertinent medical records under the liberal discovery provisions of the CPLR. . . when that party has waived the physician-patient privilege by affirmativelyputting his or her physical or mental condition in issue" (Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp.Med. Ctr., 60 NY2d 452, 456-457 [1983]; see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278[1989]; Avila v 106 Corona Realty Corp., 300 AD2d 266, 267 [2002]). Here, the plaintiffaffirmatively placed his entire medical condition in controversy through the broad allegations ofphysical injury and mental anguish contained in the complaint and bill of particulars (seeAvila v 106 Corona Realty Corp., 300 AD2d at 267; St. Clare v Cattani, 128 AD2d766 [1987]; Daniele v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 74 AD2d 814 [1980]).Moreover, the nature and severity of the plaintiff's previous injuries and medical conditions arematerial and necessary to his claims of having sustained a serious injury within the meaning ofInsurance Law § 5102 (d), as well as to any claims of loss of enjoyment of life (seeVanalst v City of New York, 276 AD2d 789 [2000]). Thus, the [*2]Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the defendants'motion which were to compel the plaintiff to provide compliant authorizations pursuant to theHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 USC § 1320d etseq.) for certain medical and hospital records relating to his medical condition (see Avilav 106 Corona Realty Corp., 300 AD2d at 267; Molesi v Rubenstein, 294 AD2d 546[2002]; Schager v Durland, 286 AD2d 725 [2001]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson,Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.