In
the case of The Pennsylvania Trust Co. v.
Wilkes-Barre Hospital Company, LLC, No. 17-CV-465 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 3, 2019 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence
R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed objections
to records subpoenas in a medical malpractice action.
The
Plaintiff objected to subpoenas that a Defendant hospital wanted to serve on
various non-parties for the production of medical, education, and employment
records of the minor Plaintiff’s parents. The Plaintiff was attempting to avoid a fishing expedition by the defense in terms of discovery information.
The
court noted that the parents of the minor were not asserting any claims seeking
damages in their own right. The court also noted that the Complaint only demanded
economic and non-economic damages on behalf of the minor Plaintiff under
allegations of medical malpractice related to the birth of the minor.
In terms of the subpoena for medical records, the court also confirmed that genetic testing of the
minor following her birth as well as DNA testing for any genetic disorder were
within normal limits. The parents also
both testified at their depositions that they themselves had not undergone any
genetic testing and that they had no family history of any genetic
disorders.
With respect to the subpoenas for employment records of the parents, the court noted that
the parents were questioned during their depositions regarding their
educational and employment backgrounds.
In this matter, the Defendant hospital
was seeking educational records for the father’s educational history as well as
employment records and medical records over a 43-year history. The court also noted that the Defendant
hospital was seeking medical records and employment records on the mother
relative to a 37-year period of her history.
The
Plaintiffs objected on the grounds that the proposed subpoenas were unlimited
in scope and timeframe and were therefore overly broad and were requesting
information that was entirely irrelevant to the subject matter of this
action.
The Defendant hospital countered that the
subpoenas were necessary to discover whether or not the parents had any medical
history of any genetic disorders, in order to secure more information on the
mother’s smoking history, and that the employment records were relevant to the
Plaintiff’s claims that the minor had suffered a loss of future earning
capacity.
In
ruling on the discovery dispute before him, Judge Nealon noted that discovery
is liberally to be allowed with respect to any matter which is relevant and not
privileged. He also noted that the trial
court is granted with broad discretion in overseeing discovery between the
parties. The judge also noted that any
doubts regarding the relevancy of information requested in discovery are
generally to be resolved in favor of allowing discovery. Here, the court granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff’s objections to the subpoenas.
The
court held that, although discovery should liberally be allowed as a general
rule, “fishing expeditions” are not permitted under the guise of
discovery. Judge Nealon returned to his
previous quoting of the late Judge John J. McDevitt, III, in noting “[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.’” [citation omitted].
The
court more specifically ruled in this case that, since the parents were not
advancing any individual claims, such as a claim for negligent infliction of
emotional distress, their medical records dating back many years were
found to be irrelevant. Discovery
requests for these medical records were also found not to be narrowly tailored to
request genetic testing information as desired by the hospital. Rather, the
overly broad subpoenas as worded would require the production of information
that was entirely irrelevant and privileged.
Accordingly, this portion of the subpoena was not allowed.
The
court also held that the hospital’s desire to explore a possible connection
between the mother’s smoking history and the issues present in this case did
not justify cart blanche access to her lifetime of medical records.
Therefore, the request for 37 years of medical records on the Plaintiff’s mother from a
dozen different healthcare providers was found to be unreasonable and was not allowed.
However,
the court did allow the Defendants to request by subpoena any genetic testing
information that may be contained in the medical records of each parent.
With
regards to the employment records of the parents, the court also found the
subpoenas for any and all records over the entire work history of the parents
to be unreasonable, particularly where the Defendants had obtained the earnings
histories from the parents from the Social Security Administration. The court noted that request for production
for each parents’ employment and educational records, including disciplinary
actions, incident reports, attendance records, and worker’s compensation
claims, were unreasonable and tantamount to an unbridled fishing
expedition. As such, the subpoena was
not allowed in this respect.
Anyone wishing to review this detailed Order online may click this
LINK.
