Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Pamela LOTT, etc., Respondent, v. SOUTHSIDE HOSPITAL, etc., et al., Defendants, Giang Tuong Nguyen, etc., Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Giang Tuong Nguyen appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Emilio, J.), entered August 31, 1999, as, upon reargument, vacated so much of a prior order of the same court, dated May 4, 1999, granting that branch of his prior motion which was to compel the plaintiff to disclose certain medical records and denying that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for a protective order, and denied that branch of his prior motion which was to compel and granted that branch of the plaintiff's prior cross motion which was for a protective order.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for a protective order as the medical records sought by the appellant are protected by the physician/patient privilege. The infant plaintiff's mother did not waive her physician/patient privilege by commencing this action on behalf of the infant plaintiff (see, Sibley v. Hayes 73 Corp., 126 A.D.2d 629, 511 N.Y.S.2d 65; Teresi v. Grecco, 206 A.D.2d 517, 615 N.Y.S.2d 893). Moreover, the physician/patient privilege of the infant plaintiff's siblings was also not waived (see, Bolos v. Staten Is. Hosp., 217 A.D.2d 643, 629 N.Y.S.2d 809; Dalley v. LaGuardia Hosp., 130 A.D.2d 543, 515 N.Y.S.2d 276).
Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to address the appellant's contention regarding the relevancy of the medical records.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 18, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)