Ethics
Ethics and Adverse Witnesses
Bill Day & Lucy R. Hirsch T
he purpose of this article is to provide guidance to legal practitioners on ex parte communication with adverse witnesses. Te article discusses ex parte communications
with treating physicians, with former employees of an opposing party, and with adverse expert witnesses. Tough not based on ethical rules alone, this article should be useful to practitioners in the Maryland state and federal courts.1
Ex parte Communications with Treating Physicians
Te Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq. (HIPAA) and Maryland law are arguably in conflict with one another in regards to the types of information released by treating physicians to opposing counsel without the consent and potentially without the knowledge of the interested person. On the one hand, Section 4-306(b)(3) of the Health Article of the Maryland Code, or the Maryland Confidentiality of Records Act (MCMRA), requires that health care providers disclose the medical records without the authorization of a party in interest “to a health care provider…or legal counsel, all information in a medical record relating to a patient or recipient’s health…or treatment which forms the basis for the issues of a claim in a civil action initiated by the patient, recipient, or person in interest.” On the other hand, HIPAA only allows for disclosure of these records without actual notification of the interested person in a number of very limited circumstances and in those instances notes that a covered entity “may” disclose such information. 45 C.F.R.§164.512. More significantly, HIPAA promises punishment to those who violate its provisions:
(a) A person who knowingly and in violation of this part – (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or
1 Maryland federal courts have adopted the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Local Rule 704 states: “Tis Court shall apply the Rules of Professional Conduct as they have been adopted by the Maryland Court of Appeals”. Further, the District Courts apply the rules as they have been construed by the Maryland Court of Appeals, Rogosin v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 164 F. Supp. 2d 684, 686 (D. Md. 2001).
(3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person shall be punished as provided in Section(b) of this section.
For purposes of the previous sentence, a person (including an employee or other individual) shall be considered to have obtained or disclosed individually identifiable health information in violation of this part if the information is maintained by a covered entity (as defined in the HIPAA privacy regulation described in section 1320d–9 (b)(3) of this title) and the individual obtained or disclosed such information without authorization. 42 U.S.C.§1320d-6. Te conflict represents competing policy concerns – the
desire to protect an individual’s privacy and desire for the fair and informed resolution of a given matter. Case law from Maryland’s federal courts have attempted
to resolve this conflict. In Law v. Zuckerman, the court found that HIPAA preempts the MCRMA or “controls” on the issue of ex parte communications with treating physicians. See, Law v. Zuckerman, 307 F. Supp. 2d 705, 709 (D. Md. 2004). Notably, mere contact between Plaintiff ’s physician and Defendant’s counsel is not regulated by HIPAA. Id. at 708. Such contact could “include discussion of many benign topics, including but not limited to, the best methods for service of a subpoena, determining convenient dates to provide trial testimony, or the most convenient location for the anticipated deposition of the physician.” Id. Te fact that section 4-306(b) (3) of the Maryland Code is preempted does not mean that counsel is not entitled to any information from a treating
Trial Reporter / Winter 2012 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68