From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casimiro v. Thayer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1995
217 A.D.2d 951 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

July 14, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure of hospital records concerning treatment received by Chris S. Thayer (defendant) following the motor vehicle accident that is the subject of this litigation and in denying defendant's cross motion for a protective order. Because defendant invoked the physician-patient privilege and did not make affirmative claims that waived it, those records are not subject to disclosure (see, Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d 278, 286-288; Schenk v. Devall, 205 A.D.2d 900; Schnobrich v. Schnobrich, 198 A.D.2d 850). The testimony of defendant at his examination before trial that he could not recall the accident and that his doctor told him that he had retrograde amnesia did not place his medical condition in controversy; that condition was not asserted as an excuse for his conduct (see, Dillenbeck v. Hess, supra, at 286-288).


Summaries of

Casimiro v. Thayer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1995
217 A.D.2d 951 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Casimiro v. Thayer

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW E. CASIMIRO, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 14, 1995

Citations

217 A.D.2d 951 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
629 N.Y.S.2d 897

Citing Cases

Petrovets v. Thorpe

The court erred, however, in granting those parts of plaintiff's motion seeking to compel defendant to…