Carondelet Health Network v. Atteberry – 6/12/2009

July 2, 2009

Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Holds That The Physician-Patient Privilege Does Not Protect a Patient's Identity From Disclosure, Where Such Disclosure Would Not Lead to the Revealing of Confidential Medical Information.

Petitioner, Carondelet Health Network, filed a special action challenging the respondent judge’s order to disclose the identity of a hospital patient. The patient’s identity was sought in a medical malpractice trial because he may have witnessed malpractice that caused the death of his hospital roommate. Carondelet claimed that disclosure of the patient’s identity would violate the physician-patient privilege.

The Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction but denied relief.  The Court explained that the purpose of the physician-patient privilege, as codified at A.R.S. §§ 12-2235 and 12-2292, is to promote full disclosure of medical conditions and to encourage the procurement of medical treatment. The Court found that Petitioner’s reliance on Ziegler v. Superior Court, 131 Ariz. 250, 640 P.2d 181 (1982) was misplaced. The Court stated that Ziegler only stands “for the proposition . . . that the physician-patient privilege protects a patient’s identity when its revelation would inevitably expose information about the patient’s medical history, condition, or treatment, and potentially reveal information the patient had divulged in confidence.” The Court held that a patient’s name may be revealed if it would not reveal details of the patient’s ailments and that conversely, a patient’s ailments may be disclosed if it would not reveal the patient’s identity.. The Court found that the trial court’s order to disclose the patient’s identity was appropriate because the parties were not seeking to discover the contents of the patient’s confidential medical records.  

The Court rejected Petitioner’s arguement that disclosure of a patient’s identity would inevitably lead to disclosure of the patient’s medical information because the patient’s status as a witness would lead to an inquiry into his ability to remember the events and thus into his physical and mental condition. The Court reasoned that “the patient-as-witness is no differently situated than any other eyewitness,” and that the trial court could “fashion such protections as it deems appropriate under the circumstances” to protect the patient’s confidential medical information.

Judge Vásquez authored the opinion; Judges Eckerstrom and Brammer concurred.