Opinion
No. 122749.
January 8, 2003.
COA: 244472, Washtenaw CC: 01-000037-NZ
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the November 13, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the September 16, 2002 order of the Washtenaw Circuit Court. The physician-patient privilege cannot be waived by the physician; it can only be waived by the patient. Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp, 460 Mich. 26, 34 (1999). Therefore, whether the defendant disclosed the redacted names to its counsel or investigator is not relevant to a determination of whether the physician-patient privilege applies. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED.
Young, Jr., J., not participating.
I concur with the judgment of the Court. On remand, the trial court might consider an alternate means of responding to the parties' concerns:
In light of the fact that certain of the patients in question may have an interest in responding to plaintiff's proposed inquiries, the trial court might direct the defendant hospital to communicate in writing with them through the mail, notifying them that plaintiff wishes to communicate with them about this litigation and listing plaintiff's counsel's name, address and telephone number. This could be accomplished by registered mail, with return receipt to the trial judge.