Collins v. Interim Healthcare of Columbus, Inc. , 2014 Ohio 40 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Collins v. Interim Healthcare of Columbus, Inc., 2014-Ohio-40.]
COURT OF APPEALS
PERRY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PATTY S. COLLINS : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
Plaintiff - Appellant : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
vs. :
:
INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF : Case No. 13-CA-00003
COLUMBUS, INC., ET. AL., :
:
Defendants - Appellees : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Perry County Court
of Common Pleas, Case No.
12CV00421
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 3, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
Administrator, Bureau of Workers’
LAUREN N. OSGOOD Compensation
MARK A. ADAMS
Mark A. Adams, LLC JUSTINE S. CASSELLE
1110 Beecher Crossing North -Ste. D Assistant Attorney General
Columbus, OH 43230 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Fl.
Columbus, OH 43215
For Defendant-Appellee
Interim Healthcare of Columbus, Inc.
RAY P. DREXEL
JOHN L. CHANEY
Gamble Hartshorn, LLC
Columbus, OH 43215
Perry County, Case No. 13-CA-00003 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Appellant Patty S. Collins appeals a judgment of the Perry County
Common Pleas Court compelling her to sign a global release of all her medical records
as requested by appellee Stephen Buehrer, Administrator of the Bureau of Workers’
Compensation. Appellant’s employer, Interim Healthcare of Columbus, Inc., is also an
appellee in the instant case.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant was injured on July 8, 2012 while moving a patient during her
employment as an in-home medical care provider for appellee Interim Healthcare. She
filed a workers’ compensation claim which was allowed for lumbar region sprain,
lumbosacral spondylosis, radiculopathy lumbosacral, degenerative disc disease at L4-
L5, epidural fibrosis, post laminectomy syndrome, and sacroilitis. She later filed a
motion requesting that her claim be allowed for an additional condition of disc bulge at
L3-4. The claim was denied. After exhausting her administrative remedies, appellant
filed a complaint in the Perry County Common Pleas Court seeking the additional
allowance for disc bulge at L3-4.
{¶3} During the discovery process, appellee requested that appellant sign a
global authorization for the release of medical information from all medical providers.
Appellant asked appellee to agree to a protective order with respect to unrelated
medical records. Appellee then filed a motion to compel signature of the global medical
release. On May 2, 2013, the court granted the motion to compel. Appellant assigns
two errors on appeal:
Perry County, Case No. 13-CA-00003 3
{¶4} “I. IN THIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE, THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED BY ORDERING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TO PRODUCE AN UNLIMITED,
UNRESTRICTED GLOBAL RELEASE OF ALL MEDICAL RECORDS RELATING TO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, INCLUDING STATUTORILY PRIVILEGED IRRELEVANT
MEDICAL RECORDS, EVEN THOUGH THE ONLY BODY PART AT ISSUE IN THE
CASE INVOLVES PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S BACK.
{¶5} “II. IN THIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE, THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED BY DENYING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER THAT WOULD ALLOW DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TO OBTAIN ALL MEDICAL
RECORDS BUT WHICH PLACED REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE AND
DISCLOSURE OF THOSE RECORDS ON DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.”
I., II.
{¶6} In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that the court erred in
ordering her to sign an unrestricted release of all medical records to appellees. In her
second assignment of error, she argues that the court erred in not issuing a protective
order or conducting an in camera review of the medical records. We agree that the trial
court erred in granting the motion to compel without first conducting an in camera
inspection of medical records to determine which records are related causally or
historically to the instant action.
{¶7} This court may not reverse a trial court's decision on a motion to compel
discovery absent an abuse of discretion. State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio
St.3d 467, 469, 692 N.E.2d 198 (1998). The Supreme Court has frequently defined the
Perry County, Case No. 13-CA-00003 4
abuse of discretion standard as implying that the court's attitude was unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id.{¶8} R.C. 2317.02(B) provides that physicians’ records are generally privileged;
however, the statute sets forth situations in which the patient has been deemed to have
waived that privilege. Appellees claim that appellant has waived that privilege pursuant
to R.C. 2317.02(B)(3)(a):
{¶9} “If the testimonial privilege described in division (B)(1) of this section does
not apply as provided in division (B)(1)(a)(iii) of this section, a physician or dentist may
be compelled to testify or to submit to discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure only
as to a communication made to the physician or dentist by the patient in question in that
relation, or the physician's or dentist's advice to the patient in question, that related
causally or historically to physical or mental injuries that are relevant to issues in the
medical claim, dental claim, chiropractic claim, or optometric claim, action for wrongful
death, other civil action, or claim under Chapter 4123. of the Revised Code.”
{¶10} In Folmar v. Griffin, 166 Ohio App. 3d 154, 549 N.E.2d, 324, 2006-Ohio-
1849, we found that a trial court abuses its discretion when it compels the discovery of
medical records without first determining by in camera inspection whether the records
are causally or historically related to the action:
{¶11} “We hold that the trial court erred in not conducting an in camera
inspection of the records before ordering them disclosed. The trial court should have
issued an order for the records to be transmitted under seal for the court's review in
camera. After receiving records under seal, a court then examines each record to
determine whether it is a medical or psychiatric document to which R.C. 2317.02(B)
Perry County, Case No. 13-CA-00003 5
applies. If the court finds that a record is a medical document, the court must further
determine whether it is related causally or historically to physical or mental injuries
relevant to the issues in the civil action. Only those medical and psychiatric records that
meet this definition under R.C. 2317.02(B) should be released.
{¶12} “After the court has reviewed the documents in camera, it should place
any documents that it finds privileged in the record under seal so that in the event of an
appeal, this court may review the information.” Id. at ¶25, 27.
{¶13} Likewise, in Thompson v. Chapman, 176 Ohio App. 3d 334, 891 N.E.2d
1247, 2008-Ohio-2282, we found that the trial court abused its discretion in compelling
the production of psychological and psychiatric treatment records without first
conducting an in camera inspection to determine whether the records were subject to
disclosure pursuant to R.C. 2317.02(B). Id. at ¶24.
{¶14} Appellees argue that appellant failed to request an in camera inspection of
the records and therefore has waived this issue. However, Civ. R. 26(C) recognizes the
inherent power of the court to control discovery. Wooten v. Westfield Ins. Co., 181 Ohio
App.3d 59, 907 N.E.2d 1219, 2009-Ohio-494, ¶20. Therefore, where a discovery
request is too broad, the trial court has the authority to conduct an in camera inspection
of the requested records even when a party does not specifically request an in camera
inspection. Id. at ¶21.
{¶15} In the instant case, appellees sought all of appellant’s medical records,
while appellant sought protection from the disclosure of medical information unrelated to
her workers’ compensation claim. The trial court abused its discretion in granting
appellees' motion to compel discovery of medical records without first conducting an in
Perry County, Case No. 13-CA-00003 6
camera inspection to determine which records were causally or historically related to the
action. Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are sustained.
{¶16} The judgment of the Perry County Common Pleas Court is reversed. This
cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law, consistent with
this opinion. Costs are assessed to appellees.
By: Baldwin, J.
Farmer, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur.