DocketNumber: No. 298291
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5107, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 795
Judges: HADDEN, J.
Filed Date: 6/3/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
In the second and third counts, respectively, plaintiffs Catherine Short and Tanya Short seek recovery for emotional distress damages.
Before the court are two motions for order of compliance filed by the plaintiffs. The first motion for order of compliance (#117), seeks an order from the court requiring that the defendant answer interrogatories and respond to requests for production with respect to statements and investigations developed during a peer review process at Connecticut Valley Hospital. CT Page 5108
The second motion for order of compliance (#118), requests that the court order the defendant to respond to requests for the production of Peterson's medical records.
In objecting to motion #117, the defendant argues that the motion should be denied because the plaintiff is seeking the discovery of statements and investigations developed during a peer review process, and claims that General Statutes
The plaintiffs argue that
In relevant part, General Statutes 119a-17b(d) states: "The proceedings of a medical review committee conducting a peer review shall not be subject to discovery . . . in any civil action for or against a health care provider arising out of the matters which are subject to evaluation and review by such committee. . . ."
"Health care provider" is defined by General Statutes 19-17b(a) (i) as being "any person, corporation, facility or institution licensed by this state to provide health care or professional services. . . ."
General Statutes 19-a-490, et seq., govern the licensing of health care institutions. Section
Pursuant to General Statutes
With respect to motion for order of compliance #118 the defendant argues that that motion should be denied because General Statutes
The plaintiffs claim that the motion should be granted because Peterson used portions of his medical record at his criminal trial, that these portions of his record are available to the public, and that both parties in the present case already possess copies of these portions of his record. Further, the i plaintiffs argue that Peterson's use of portions of his medical record constitutes a waiver of the confidentiality of the entire record. Alternatively, they argue that there are portions of the medical record which are not privileged and such records must be produced.
General Statutes
All communications and records . . . shall be confidential. . . . [N]o person may disclose or transmit any communications and records or the substance or any part or any resume thereof which identify a patient to any person, corporation or governmental agency without the consent of the patient.
Communications and records" are defined as "all oral and written communications and records thereof relating to diagnosis or treatment of a patient's mental condition between the patient and psychiatrist, . . . or between . . . such persons and a person participating under the supervision of a psychiatrist in the accomplishment of the objectives of diagnosis and treatment, wherever made, including communications and records which occur in or are prepared at a mental health facility[.]" General Statutes
General Statutes
It is the plaintiff's position that Peterson's use of portions of his medical record in his criminal trial constitutes a waiver of his right to the confidentiality of his entire medical records. However, in State v. Pierson,
Finally, the plaintiffs argue that records relating to Peterson's "custody, security, levels of privilege, whereabouts, staff observations of conditions, administration of medication, etc." must be disclosed because they are not within the
Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for order of compliance (#118) is granted as to records publicly disclosed at Peterson's criminal trial. The motion is denied as to all other psychiatric records.
WILLIAM L. HADDEN, JR., JUDGE