On November 13, 1993, the trial court entered an order (hereafter referred to as the "1993 order") denying the petitioners' motion and authorizing Bjork's attorney to interview the physicians in the absence of Samms or Samms' attorney. In so doing, the trial court stated that it declined to follow this court's decision in Fields v. McNamara, 189 Colo. 284, 540 P.2d 327 (1975). In its 1993 order the trial court stated that Samms had placed her physical and mental condition in issue and "any other injuries or conditions, `which arguably could have caused or contributed to the injuries or damages alleged in the complaint.'"
Plaintiffs appear to rely upon Colorado Bar Association Ethics Opinion # 71 for their position. On the other hand, counsel for Defendants argued that they are absolutely entitled to the releases pursuant to Fields v. McNamara, 189 Colo. 284, 540 P.2d 327 (1975). This Court notes that the motions to compel are brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. Requests for production of documents are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. That Rule reads, in part, as follows: (a) Scope.
( State ex rel. Kitzmiller v. Henning (1993) 190 W. Va. 142 [ 437 S.E.2d 452]; Cua v. Morrison (Ind. 1994) 636 N.E.2d 1248, adopting opn. published at (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) 626 N.E.2d 581; Crist v. Moffatt (1990) 326 N.C. 326, 332 [ 389 S.E.2d 41, 45]; Duquette v. Superior Court (1989) 161 Ariz. 269 [ 778 P.2d 634]; Loudon v. Mhyre (1988) 110 Wn.2d 675 [ 756 P.2d 138]; Linton v. City ofGreat Falls (1988) 230 Mont. 122 [ 749 P.2d 55]; Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc. (1987) 148 Ill. App.3d 581, 591 [102 Ill.Dec. 172, 499 N.E.2d 952]; Nelson v. Lewis (1987) 130 N.H. 106 [ 534 A.2d 720]; Smith v. Ashby (1987) 106 N.M. 358 [ 743 P.2d 114]; Roosevelt Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Sweeney (Iowa 1986) 394 N.W.2d 353; Weaver v. Mann (D.N.D. 1981) 90 F.R.D. 443, 445; Anker v. Brodnitz (1979) 98 Misc.2d 148, [413 N.Y.S.2d 582]; Wenninger v. Muesing (1976) 307 Minn. 405 [ 240 N.W.2d 333]; Fields v. McNamara (1975) 189 Colo. 284 [ 540 P.2d 327]; Hammonds v. Aetna Casualty Surety Company,supra, 243 F. Supp. 793.) The Missouri Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff in a personal injury action may not be compelled to authorize defense counsel to meet ex parte with the plaintiff's treating physicians.
Again, Defendants are not asking to communicate ex parte with treating physicians on substantive issues concerning Plaintiff's medical care. In addition, the outcome in Neal turned on the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Fields v. McNamara, 189 Colo. 284, 540 P.2d 327 (1975), which that court has since disavowed. See Samms v. Dist. Ct., Fourth Jud. Dist. of State of Colo., 908 P.2d 520, 527 (Colo. 1995) (en banc) (“to the extent that our decision in Fields suggests that in civil actions trial courts may not authorize a defense attorney, in the absence of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney, to informally interview physicians who have treated the plaintiff regarding matters that are not subject to the physician-patient privilege, we disapprove of that decision”).
Most states on the other hand, hold that a defense attorney who contacts a plaintiff's treating physician without authorization violates state law, professional ethics, or the physician-patient privilege of confidentiality. See, e.g., Harlan v. Lewis, 982 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir.) (Arkansas), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 94, 126 L.Ed.2d 61 (1993); Horner, 153 F.R.D. at 602 (Texas); Manion v. N.P.W. Medical Ctr., 676 F. Supp. 585 (M.D.Pa. 1987); Alston v. Greater S.E. Community Hosp., 107 F.R.D. 35 (D.D.C. 1985); Weaver v. Mann, 90 F.R.D. 443 (D.N.D. 1981); Garner v. Ford Motor Co., 61 F.R.D. 22 (D.Alaska 1973); Duquette v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 269, 778 P.2d 634 (App. 1989); Torres v. Superior Court, 221 Cal.App.3d 181, 270 Cal.Rptr. 401, 405 (Cal.App. 1990); Fields v. McNamara, 189 Colo. 284, 540 P.2d 327 (1975); Pourchot v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 224 Ill. App.3d 634, 167 Ill.Dec. 320, 321, 587 N.E.2d 589, 591 (1992); Roosevelt Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Sweeny, 394 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 1986); Schwartz v. Goldstein, 400 Mass. 152, 508 N.E.2d 97 (Mass. 1987); Jaap v. District Court, 191 Mont. 319, 623 P.2d 1389 (1981); Woytus v. Ryan, 776 S.W.2d 389 (Mo. 1989); In re New York County DES Litigation, 182 A.D.2d 445, 581 N.Y.S.2d 353 (1992); Crist v. Moffatt, 389 S.E.2d 41 (N.C. 1990); Johnson v. District Ct. of Okla. County, 738 P.2d 151 (Okla. 1987); Loudon v. Mhyre, 110 Wn.2d 675, 756 P.2d 138 (1988); Zintek v. Perchik, 163 Wis.2d 439, 471 N.W.2d 522 (App. 1991).
The patient's implicit consent, however, is obviously and necessarily limited; he does not consent, simply by filing suit, to his physician's discussing his medical confidences with third parties outside court-authorized discovery methods, nor does he consent to his physician's discussing the patient's confidences in an ex parte conference with the patient's adversary.See, Fields v. McNamara, 189 Colo. 284, 540 P.2d 327 (Sup.Ct. 1975); Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 148 Ill. App.3d 581, 102 Ill.Dec. 172, 499 N.E.2d 952, 959 (1 Dist. 1986); Crist v. Moffatt, 389 S.E.2d 41, 46 (N.C. 1990); Ritter v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's, 177 Ill. App.3d 313, 126 Ill.Dec. 642, 532 N.E.2d 327, 330 (1 Dist. 1988); Karsten v. McCray, 157 Ill. App.3d 1, 109 Ill.Dec. 364, 509 N.E.2d 1376, 1383-84 (2 Dist. 1987); Jordan v. Sinai Hosp. of Detroit, Inc., 171 Mich. App. 328, 429 N.W.2d 891, 899 (1988); Wenninger v. Muesing, 307 Minn. 405, 240 N.W.2d 333, 335 (Sup.Ct. 1976); Jaap v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist., Mont., 191 Mont. 319, 623 P.2d 1389, 1391 (1981). The danger of ex parte interviews of a doctor by adverse counsel is that the patient's lawyer is afforded no opportunity to object to the disclosure of medical information that is remote, irrelevant, or compromising in a context other than the lawsuit at hand.
Defendant instead must utilize the statutorily recognized methods of discovery enumerated in N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 26. For additional authorities reaching the same result on similar policy grounds, see Alston v. Greater Southeast Community Hosp., 107 F.R.D. 35 (D.D.C. 1985); Weaver v. Mann, 90 F.R.D. 443 (D.N.D. 1981); Garner v. Ford Motor Co., 61 F.R.D. 22 (D.Alaska 1973); Fields v. McNamara, 189 Colo. 284, 540 P.2d 327 (1975); State ex rel. Woytus v. Ryan, 776 S.W.2d 389 (Mo. 1989); Loudon v. Mhyre, 110 Wn.2d 675, 756 P.2d 138 (1988). We do not intend by this holding to discourage consensual informal discovery.
We recognize that other jurisdictions have specifically held that ex parte interviews are not allowed. See Alston v. Greater Southeast Community Hosp., 107 F.R.D. 35 (D.D.C. 1985); Weaver v. Mann, 90 F.R.D. 443 (D.N.D. 1981); Garner, 61 F.R.D. 22; Fields v. McNamara, 189 Colo. 284, 540 P.2d 327 (1975); Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, 148 Ill. App.3d 581, 102 Ill.Dec. 172, 499 N.E.2d 952 (1986), cert. denied sub nom. Tobin v. Petrillo, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 3232, 97 L.Ed.2d 738 (1987); Roosevelt Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Sweeney, 394 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 1986); Wenninger v. Muesing, 307 Minn. 405, 240 N.W.2d 333 (1976); Jaap, 623 P.2d 1389; Anker, 125 Wis.2d 468, 413 N.Y.S.2d 582; State ex rel. Klieger v. Alby, 373 N.W.2d 57 (App. 1985).
The Kitzmiller court opined that the patient "does not consent, simply by filing suit, to his physician's discussing his medical confidences with third parties outside court-authorized discovery methods, nor does he consent to his physician's discussing the patient's confidences in an ex parte conference with the patient's adversary." Id. (citing see, Fields v. McNamara, 189 Colo. 284, 540 P.2d 327 (Sup. Ct.1975); Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 148 Ill. App.3d 581, 102 Ill. Dec. 172, 499 N.E.2d 952, 959 (1 Dist.1986); Crist v. Moffatt, 389 S.E.2d 41, 46 (N.C. 1990); Ritter v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's, 177 Ill. App.3d 313, 126 Ill. Dec. 642, 532 N.E.2d 327, 330 (1 Dist.1988); Karsten v. McCray, 157 Ill. App.3d 1, 109 Ill. Dec. 364, 509 N.E.2d 1376, 1383-84 (2 Dist.1987); Jordan v. Sinai Hosp. of Detroit, Inc., 171 Mich. App. 328, 429 N.W.2d 891, 899 (1988); Wenninger v. Muesing, 307 Minn. 405, 240 N.W.2d 333, 335 (Sup. Ct. 1976); Jaap v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist., Mont., 191 Mont. 319, 623 P.2d 1389, 1391 (1981)). It held that "[e]x parte interviews are prohibited because they pose the danger of disclosing irrelevant medical information that may compromise the confidential nature of the doctor-patient relationship without advancing any legitimate object of discovery[,]" and that discovery could be obtained only as permitted by the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure
Conversely, other courts have held that, in the absence of an express waiver, ex parte discovery by a party of a plaintiff's treating physician is improper. See, e.g., Duquette v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 269, 778 P.2d 634 (Ct.App. 1989); Fields v. McNamara, 189 Colo. 284, 540 P.2d 327 (1975) (en banc); Petrillo v. Syntex Lab., Inc., 148 Ill. App.3d 581, 102 Ill.Dec. 172, 499 N.E.2d 952 (1986), cert. denied, 113 Ill.2d 584, 106 Ill.Dec. 55, 505 N.E.2d 361, and cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1007, 107 S.Ct. 3232, 97 L.Ed.2d 738 (1987); Roosevelt Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Sweeney, 394 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 1986); Wesley Med. Ctr. v. Clark, 234 Kan. 13, 669 P.2d 209 (1983); Wenninger v. Muesing, 307 Minn. 405, 240 N.W.2d 333 (1976); State ex rel. Woytus v. Ryan, 776 S.W.2d 389 (Mo. 1989) (en banc); Jaap v. District Court, 191 Mont. 319, 623 P.2d 1389 (1981); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Woodard, 461 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Civ.App. 1970); State ex rel. Klieger v. Alby, 125 Wis.2d 468, 373 N.W.2d 57 (Ct.App. 1985). Courts which have denied ex parte interviews with a plaintiff's treating physician have generally restricted such right because of privacy interests underlying the physician-patient relationship and concern that adversarial parties may seek to improperly influence a plaintiff's physician.