This matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident. More specifically, in this case, the court
addressed a Motion by the Defendant to strike the Plaintiff’s objections to
records subpoenas that the Defendant had addressed to the Plaintiff’s
healthcare providers as well as to two (2) automobile insurance carriers.
The gist of the Plaintiff’s objections is that the Defendant
sought medical records dating back to the Plaintiff’s date of birth which was
more than 52 years before. As such, the
Plaintiff asserted that the records requests were overly broad and sought
information that is not relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. The Plaintiff
further stated that he would not object to subpoenas which were reasonably
limited in time and scope.
The defense countered with an argument that the Plaintiff
had admitted during his deposition that he had had extensive dental work
performed in the mid-1980s (in this matter, the Plaintiff was alleging a TMJ
injury), that the Plaintiff had been injured in previous motor vehicle
accidents. The Defendant generally
asserted that she was entitled to secured documentation relevant to the
Plaintiff’s past medical history and any and all documents pertaining to the
Plaintiff’s past medical care and treatment in order to ascertain whether any
of the injuries alleged by the Plaintiff existed prior to the accident and/or
whether or not the Plaintiff was involved in any other prior incidents as a
result of which he sustained personal injuries.
The Plaintiff acknowledged that he was involved in prior
motor vehicle accidents in 1991, 1993, and 1998. However, the Plaintiff also stated that, for
years before the subject collision, he worked as a personal trainer and ran
multiple marathons, along with ultramarathons of greater than 50 miles every
year. The Plaintiff also described
during his discovery responses that any prior treatment he had in the mid-1980s
as well as in the 1990s were for unrelated conditions that had no bearing on
the issues presented following the subject accident.
The Plaintiff additionally asserted that the Defendant’s
request for medical records and the files of the automobile insurance carriers
relative to the Plaintiff’s 1991, 1993, and 1998 accidents were "fishing
expeditions."
 |
| Judge Terrence R. Nealon Lackawanna County |
In his Opinion, Judge Nealon set forth the current status of
the discovery standards pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1 and confirm that
discovery is to be liberally permitted with respect to any matters that were
not privileged, and which were relevant to the case being tried. The court also noted that any doubts
regarding relevance should be resolved in favoring of allowing the requested discovery.
However, Judge Nealon also stated that it is the
responsibility of the trial court to oversee discovery between the parties and
to determine, within the court’s broad discretion, any appropriate measures to
ensure adequate and prompt discovery of matters allowed by the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure. The court
reaffirmed the general rule that, while discovery should be liberally
permitted, discovery requests must also be reasonable. Judge Nealon noted that the courts of
Pennsylvania have repeatedly held that trial courts can prohibit the discovery
of matters which would amount to a fishing expedition.
Judge Nealon emphasized that while the courts have repeatedly indicated that, “[w]hile a limited degree of ‘fishing’ is to be expected with certain discovery requests, parties are not permitted ‘to fish with a net rather than with a hook or a harpoon.’” See Bandru at p. 6.
Applying this law to the case before him, Judge Nealon ruled
that some of the information requested by the defense was indeed discoverable
and other information was not. As such,
the matter before the court was granted in part and denied in part.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this detailed Order
issued by Judge Nealon may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.