Term
| Ex parte contacts with patient's physician |
|
Definition
| While GA law for production of documents by a non-party including giving the patient an opportunity to object to the production, does not violate the patient's privacy interest granted by HIPPA, a producing physician may not thereafter speak ex parte with defense counsel unless the patient clearly consents. Moreland v. Austin, 284 Ga 730 (2008) |
|
|
Term
| Medical Records Production from Third Party: OCGA 9-11-34(c) |
|
Definition
| Provides for the production of documents from third parties after a civil action is filed. If the defendant requests the plaintiff's medical records from a medical provider, the plaintiff and/or provider can object within 20 days. If there is no objection the medical provider may supply the documents (OCGA 0-11-34(c)(2)). |
|
|
Term
| Obtaining a court order for ex parte contact - Procedure |
|
Definition
| The defense may meet ex parte with treating healthcare providers if the trial court grants a qualified protective order, although such orders must be crafted carefully so as to honor the patient's right to medical privacy based on the GA Constitution. The order must state with particularity: (1) the names of the providers who may be interviewed (2) the medical conditions at issue, (3) the fact that the defense rather than the patient requested the interview, and (4) that the provider is not compelled to meet with defense counsel. The trial court should also consider whether the P's counsel should be given an opportunity to appear at or to require transcription of the interview (Baker v. Wellstar Health Sys. Inc, 288 Ga 336 (2010)). |
|
|
Term
| T or F - There is no physician-patient privilege in Georgia? |
|
Definition
| TRUE - There is no physician-patient privilege in GA. Orr v. Sievert, 162 Ga App. 677 (1982). OCGA 24-9-40 and HIPPA DO recognize a privacy interest in one's medical records. That privacy interest is waived to the extent that the patient places his care and treatment or the nature and extent of his injuries at issue in any civil or criminal proceeding. OCGA 24-9-40(a). Nonetheless, HIPPA must be satisfied by using the procedure from OCGA 9-11-34(c) - Medical Records Production. However - patient-psychiatrist privilege does exist. |
|
|
Term
| Patient-psychiatrist privilege (Does exist in GA) |
|
Definition
| OCGA 24-9-21(5): Annadale at Suwanee Inc v. Weatherly, 194 Ga Ap. 803 (1990). A confidential relationship is created where a patient voluntarily seeks assistance of a psychiatrist or a psychologist and communications between them are absolutely privileged, even if the patient places his/her medical condition at issue in a personal injury action. Any communications not made to a psychiatrist or psychologies - e.g. to a nurse in the office - are not privileged. Weksler v. Weksler, 173 Ga. App. 250 (1985). Mental Health records may not be produced, even where a patient fails to object, because there is no implied waiver. Dynin v. Hall, 207 Ga App. 337 (1993). Even if the mental Health treatment was involuntarily sought or ordered by the court, communications between the patient and the care provider are privileged, however the fact of the treatment is not privileged. Heredeen v. State, 279 Ga. 323 (2005). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The proceedings of medical review committees shall not be subject to discovery or entered ino evidence in any civil action - there are only 2 exceptions to the peer review discovery cloak - (1) matters from original sources and (2) matters within one's knowledge - OCGA 31-17-143
"Medical Review Committee" means any group pursuant to hospital or nursing home bylaws set up to improve healthcare. OCGA 31-7-140 |
|
|
Term
| Routine Matters of Credentialing |
|
Definition
| Unless the credentialing information involved the evaluation of the quality and efficiency of actual medical services, it does not come within the peer review and medical review privileges. Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County v. Meeks 285 Ga 521, 678 S.E.2d 71 (2009). |
|
|
Term
| Are Infection Rates Discoverable? |
|
Definition
| Yes, infection rates, as well as information from nurses who compiled the data, are discoverable. Cobb County Kennestone Hospital Authority v. Martin, 208 Ga. App. 326 (1993). |
|
|
Term
| Incident/Accident Reports |
|
Definition
| Incident/accident reports of nursing homes are discoverable. the reports can serve both as evidence of notice that residents were improperly supervised and as similar acts evidence in both the liability and the punitive damages phases of trial. Peacock v. HCP III Eastman, Inc. 230 Ga. App 726 (1998). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Whether a party has destroyed evidence which may be material to litigation typically in a fact question for the jury. Glynn Plymouth v. Davis Chrysler Motors, 120 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1997). The party can be guilty of spoliation once there is notice of potential litigation, such as when a lawyer requests medical records. Kitchens v. Brusman 303 Ga App 703 (2010). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| There is no independent action for spoliation. If the fact-finder decides a party spoliated, the court can (1) charge the jury that spoliation creates the rebuttable presumption that the evidence would have been harmful to the spoliator, (2) dismiss the case, or (3) exclude testimony about the evidence. R.A. Siegel Co v. Bowen 246 Ga. App. 177 (2000). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| In deciding which remedy to use, the court will consider (1) whether the non-spoliator was prejudiced, (2) whether the prejudice could be cured, (3) the practical importance of the evidence, (4) whether the spoliator acted in good faith, and (5) the potential for abuse if expert testimony about the evidence is not excluded. Chapman v. Auto Owners Ins. Co. 220 Ga App. 539 539, 542 (1996) R.A.Siegel Co. v. Bowen, 246 Ga. App. 177, 181 (2000). |
|
|
