Tirado v. Koritz, 77 A.D.3d 1368 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Tirado v. Koritz, 77 A.D.3d 1368 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …the waiver of the physician-patient privilege made by a party who affirmatively asserts a physical condition in its pleading does not permit discovery of information involving unrelated illnesses and treatments at p. 1369 ✓ Topic ↗
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Barnes v. Habuda (nyappdiv, 2014-06-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barnes v. Habuda
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
It is also well settled that, “ ‘[i]n bringing the action, plaintiff waive[s] the physician[-]patient privilege only with respect to the physical and mental conditions affirmatively placed in controversy’ ” (Tirado v Koritz, 77 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2010]). “ ‘The waiver of the physician-patient privilege made by a party who affirmatively asserts a physical condition in its pleading does not permit discovery of information involving unrelated illnesses and treatments’ ” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Donald v Ahern, 96 AD3d 1608, 1610 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barnes v. Habuda
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
It is also well settled that, “ ‘[i]n bringing the action, plaintiff waive[s] the physician[-]patient privilege only with respect to the physical and mental conditions affirmatively placed in controversy’ ” (Tirado v Koritz, 77 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2010]). “ ‘The waiver of the physician-patient privilege made by a party who affirmatively asserts a physical condition in its pleading does not permit discovery of information involving unrelated illnesses and treatments’ ” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Donald v Ahern, 96 AD3d 1608, 1610 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) HARRIS, JEFFREY T. v. SCHMIDT, ASHLEY E.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The court properly exercised its discretion in directing plaintiffs to submit for in camera review records of a prior workers’ compensation claim unrelated to the subject accident, thus permitting the court to determine whether those records are material and relevant to the medical conditions placed in controversy by plaintiffs (see Tirado v Koritz, 77 AD3d 1368, 1370 [2010]; Myrie, 237 AD2d at 339 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dominique D. v. Koerntgen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Corp., 93 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2012]; Tirado v Koritz, 77 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2010]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dominique D. v. Koerntgen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Corp., 93 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2012]; Tirado v Koritz, 77 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BOYEA, PENNY v. BENZ, III, JAMES J.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Although plaintiff is no longer asserting a separate claim for emotional distress as a result of the accident, many of her broad allegations of injury, including her alleged limited ability to perform normal daily functions and social activities, as well as her alleged “inability and limited ability to engage in life’s enjoyments and loss of employment and career,” could have resulted from physical injuries sustained in the accident, her preexisting mental condition or some combination thereof (see Tirado v Koritz, 77 AD3d 1368, 1370 [2010]; see generally Geraci v National Fuel Gas Distr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nichter v. Erie County Medical Center Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We further conclude, however, that the records should not be released to defendants until the court has conducted an in camera review thereof, so that irrelevant information is redacted (see Tirado v Koritz, 77 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2010]; see generally Tabone v Lee, 59 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]; Mayer v Cusyck, 284 AD2d 937, 938 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) GOETCHIUS, JOYCE A. v. SPAVENTO, M.D., PERRY J.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Rather, they should be reviewed by Supreme Court in camera so that irrelevant information is not disclosed to defendants (see Tirado v Koritz, 77 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2010]; see generally Tabone v Lee, 59 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]; Mayer v Cusyck, 284 AD2d 937 [2001]).
discussed Cited "see" Josphe v. Dermatology Associates of Rochester, P.C.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
In regards to the speaking authorizations, counsel submits that they are consistent with Arons v Jutkowitz, but that defendants would be amenable “to including alternate language on the authorizations, which more specifically outlines the details of the lawsuit.” (Gregorio affirmation, Apr. 18, 2016, ¶ 12.) It is well settled law in the Fourth Department that “although a plaintiff who commences a personal injury action has waived the physician-patient privilege to the extent that his [or her] physical or mental condition is affirmatively placed in controversy . . . , the waiver ... of t…
discussed Cited "see" DONALD, DARLENE v. AHERN, DEVAN E. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from an order denying his motion. *1610 With respect to appeal No. 1, we agree with defendant that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion insofar as it sought to compel plaintiff to complete the HIPAA authorizations and erred in granting plaintiffs cross motion, but only to the extent that the resulting records are to be submitted to the court for an in camera review and appropriate redaction, as explained herein, before defendant may receive them. “[Although [a] plaintiff who commences a personal injury action has waived the physician-patient priv…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kandis Tirado
v.
Sara H. Koritz, M.D.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 1, 2010.
77 A.D.3d 1368
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Paula L. Feroleto, J.), entered June 30, 2009 in a medical malpractice action. The order directed plaintiffs to disclose various medical records.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the second ordering paragraph and that part of the third ordering paragraph directing plaintiffs to provide an authorization permitting the release of certain medical records, and by directing plaintiffs to[*1369] submit to Supreme Court a certified complete copy of the medical records of plaintiff Kandis Tirado from Daniel Leary, M.D. and a certified complete copy of the medical records of plaintiff Kandis Tirado from Community Blue and Empire Medical Services prior to October 15, 2007, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Kandis Tirado (plaintiff) when her bowel was perforated during a hysterectomy. After plaintiffs refused to comply fully with defendants’ disclosure requests, defendants moved for, inter alia, an order compelling plaintiffs to provide medical authorizations in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 USC § 1320d et seq.), permitting the release of plaintiffs medical records from various providers.

In view of the injuries alleged by plaintiffs, we conclude that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in directing plaintiffs to submit to the court for in camera review a certified complete copy of plaintiffs records from Sadiqa Karim, M.D., Quest Diagnostic and X-Cell Laboratories of WNY (see Tabone v Lee, 59 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]; Mayer v Cusyck, 284 AD2d 937 [2001]; Carter v Fantauzzo, 256 AD2d 1189, 1190 [1998]). “In bringing the action, plaintiff waived the physician[-]patient privilege only with respect to the physical and mental conditions affirmatively placed in controversy” (Mayer, 284 AD2d at 938). “That waiver, however, ‘does not permit wholesale discovery of information regarding [plaintiffs] physical and mental condition. The waiver of the physician-patient privilege made by a party who affirmatively asserts a physical condition in its pleading does not permit discovery of information involving unrelated illnesses and treatments’ ” (Carter, 256 AD2d at 1190).

The court abused its discretion, however, in directing plaintiffs to provide authorizations permitting the release of plaintiffs medical records from Daniel Leary, M.D. and Sadiqa Karim, M.D. that “are related to any condition(s) or disease(s) of the abdomen or pelvis, as well as [to] those [conditions or diseases] that are gynecological or obstetrical in nature.” The court, rather than those medical providers, is in the best position “to determine whether the records are material and related to any physical or mental condition placed in issue by plaintiffs” (Tabone, 59 AD3d at 1022). We therefore modify the order accordingly. The court properly directed plaintiffs to provide[*1370] authorizations permitting the release of plaintiffs medical records from Community Blue and Empire Medical Services from October 15, 2007, the date of the hysterectomy, to the present. We conclude, however, that plaintiffs’ “broad allegations of injury” also place the medical history of plaintiff predating the hysterectomy in controversy (Geraci v National Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp., 255 AD2d 945, 946 [1998]). The court therefore should have directed plaintiffs to submit to the court for in camera review a certified complete copy of plaintiffs records from Community Blue and Empire Medical Services prior to October 15, 2007. We therefore further modify the order accordingly. We remit the matter to Supreme Court for an in camera review of plaintiff’s medical records from Dr. Leary and plaintiffs medical records from Community Blue and Empire Medical Services prior to October 15, 2007 to determine whether they are material and related to any physical or mental condition placed in issue by plaintiffs. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith and Green, JJ.