37 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lazorick v. Browngreen2 sentences1998Ibid; see also Lazorick v. Brown, 195 N.J.Super. 444, 451-52 , 480 A. 2d 223 (App.Div.1984) (detailing the legislative history of the physician-patient privilege). 1998Ibid; see also Lazorick v. Brown, 195 N.J.Super. 444, 451-52 , 480 A. 2d 223 (App.Div.1984) (detailing the legislative history of the physician-patient privilege). | 4 | 5 |
Crist v. Moffattgreen2 sentences2005The North Carolina court was guided by its public policy concerns that a physician might become liable for inadvertent disclosures and/or the interview might disintegrate into improper discussions beyond waived matters. 32 The Crist Court concluded that “considerations of patient privacy, the confidential relationship between doctor and patient, the adequacy of formal discovery devices, and the untenable position in which ex parte contacts place the nonparty treating physician supersede defendant’s interest in a less expensive and more convenient method of discovery____ [Tjhus ... defense coun 2005The North Carolina court was guided by its public policy concerns that a physician might become liable for inadvertent disclosures and/or the interview might disintegrate into improper discussions beyond waived matters. [32] The Crist Court concluded that "considerations of patient privacy, the confidential relationship between doctor and patient, the adequacy of formal discovery devices, and the untenable position in which ex parte contacts place the nonparty treating physician supersede defendant's interest in a less expensive and more convenient method of discovery. . . . [T]hus . . . defen | 2 | 2 |
Hague v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1999Since the Legislature had not yet adopted the physician-patient privilege by statute, the Court found that in our State the "policy is to expose such information to view when it is relevant to the resolution of litigation." Id. at 335 , 181 A. 2d 345 . 1999Since the Legislature had not yet adopted the physician-patient privilege by statute, the Court found that in our State the "policy is to expose such information to view when it is relevant to the resolution of litigation." Id. at 335 , 181 A. 2d 345 . | 1 | 7 |
State, in Interest of Mpcgreen2 sentences1995Super. 131, 136 [ 397 A. 2d 1092 ] (App.Div. 1979). [ State v. Dyal, supra, 97 N.J. at 237-238 , 478 A. 2d 390 .] In Hague v. Williams, 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A. 2d 345 (1962), a case decided before the statutory enactment of the physician-patient privilege, our Supreme Court recognized that the physician-patient privileged is not absolute but rather is subject to certain limitations: *476 This is not to say that the patient enjoys an absolute right, but rather that he possesses a limited right against such disclosure, subject to exceptions promoted by the supervening interest of society. 1995State, in the Interest of M.P.C., supra, 165 N.J.Super. at 136 , 397 A.2d 1092 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. LJPgreen2 sentences1999Moreover, the psychologist-patient privilege has been "given greater scope and protection than the physician-patient privilege." State v. L.J.P., supra, 270 N.J.Super. at 438 , 637 A. 2d 532 ; see also Kinsella, supra at 298 n. 1, 696 A. 2d 556 . 1999Moreover, the psychologist-patient privilege has been "given greater scope and protection than the physician-patient privilege." State v. L.J.P., supra, 270 N.J.Super. at 438 , 637 A. 2d 532 ; see also Kinsella, supra at 298 n. 1, 696 A. 2d 556 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dyalgreen2 sentences1995Super. 131, 136 [ 397 A. 2d 1092 ] (App.Div. 1979). [ State v. Dyal, supra, 97 N.J. at 237-238 , 478 A. 2d 390 .] In Hague v. Williams, 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A. 2d 345 (1962), a case decided before the statutory enactment of the physician-patient privilege, our Supreme Court recognized that the physician-patient privileged is not absolute but rather is subject to certain limitations: *476 This is not to say that the patient enjoys an absolute right, but rather that he possesses a limited right against such disclosure, subject to exceptions promoted by the supervening interest of society. 1995Super. 131, 136 [ 397 A. 2d 1092 ] (App.Div. 1979). [ State v. Dyal, supra, 97 N.J. at 237-238 , 478 A. 2d 390 .] In Hague v. Williams, 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A. 2d 345 (1962), a case decided before the statutory enactment of the physician-patient privilege, our Supreme Court recognized that the physician-patient privileged is not absolute but rather is subject to certain limitations: *476 This is not to say that the patient enjoys an absolute right, but rather that he possesses a limited right against such disclosure, subject to exceptions promoted by the supervening interest of society. | 1 | 2 |
State of New Jersey v. Brandon Kanegreen1 sentence2021See State v. Kane, 449 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mautigreen1 sentence2017A court is required to "give as much effect as possible to the legislative judgments embodied in the privileges within ever-present constitutional limitations." State v. Mauti, 208 N.J. 519, 537 (2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Busik v. Levinegreen2 sentences2005See Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 367-68 , 307 A. 2d 571 (1973). [4] Because we conclude that the names and addresses of hospital patients are protected from disclosure by the Hospital Patients Bill of Rights Act and the Physician-Patient privilege, we have no need to consider the protections of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub.L. 2005See Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 367-68 , 307 A. 2d 571 (1973). [4] Because we conclude that the names and addresses of hospital patients are protected from disclosure by the Hospital Patients Bill of Rights Act and the Physician-Patient privilege, we have no need to consider the protections of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub.L. | 1 | 1 |
Kinsella v. Kinsellagreen1 sentence1999Moreover, the psychologist-patient privilege has been "given greater scope and protection than the physician-patient privilege." State v. L.J.P., supra, 270 N.J.Super. at 438 , 637 A. 2d 532 ; see also Kinsella, supra at 298 n. 1, 696 A. 2d 556 . | 1 | 1 |
RITT v. Rittgreen2 sentences1997See Ritt v. Ritt, 52 N.J. 177, 181, 244 A.2d 497 (1968); cf. State v. Long, 119 N.J. 439, 479 , 575 A.2d 435 (1990); Gabor v. Hyland, 166 N.J.Super. 275, 278-79 , 399 A.2d 993 (App.Div.1979). 1997See Ritt v. Ritt, 52 N.J. 177, 181, 244 A.2d 497 (1968); cf. State v. Long, 119 N.J. 439, 479 , 575 A.2d 435 (1990); Gabor v. Hyland, 166 N.J.Super. 275, 278-79 , 399 A.2d 993 (App.Div.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Christensen v. Munsengreen2 sentences1995The Supreme Court of Washington recently held that a plaintiffs treating physician could testify about the cause of plaintiffs glaucoma because a “treating physician may testify as to both fact and opinion in a medical malpractice action regardless of whether the physician is a defense or plaintiffs witness.” Christensen v. Munsen, 123 Wash.2d 234 , 867 P.2d 626, 629 (1994); see also Carson v. Fine, 123 Wash.2d 206 , 867 P.2d 610, 616-17 (1994) (concluding that “[tjhere is no basis in reason, the common law or in statutory law to draw a distinction between the types of testimony a treating phy 1995The Supreme Court of Washington recently held that a plaintiffs treating physician could testify about the cause of plaintiffs glaucoma because a “treating physician may testify as to both fact and opinion in a medical malpractice action regardless of whether the physician is a defense or plaintiffs witness.” Christensen v. Munsen, 123 Wash.2d 234 , 867 P.2d 626, 629 (1994); see also Carson v. Fine, 123 Wash.2d 206 , 867 P.2d 610, 616-17 (1994) (concluding that “[tjhere is no basis in reason, the common law or in statutory law to draw a distinction between the types of testimony a treating phy | 1 | 1 |
| Carson v. Finegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Doe v. University of Cincinnatigreen | 1 | 1 |
| BELLE BONFILS M. BL. CTR. v. Dist. Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re B.green | 1 | 1 |
| George Taylor v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. DiCarlogreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Subpoena Served Upon Jorge S. Zuniga, M.D. In Re Subpoena Served Upon Gary R. Pierce, M.D.green | 1 | 1 |
| Electronic Currency Corp. v. Western States Bankcard Ass'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fields v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Lifschutzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arena v. Saphier
green
2 sentences1998In reaching its conclusion, the court rejected any analogy to the physician-patient privilege, finding instead that "the discoverability of the psychologist's consultation notes should be considered within the context of the more limited waiver doctrine applicable to the attorney-client privilege." Id. at 88 , 492 A. 2d 1020 . 1998In reaching its conclusion, the court rejected any analogy to the physician-patient privilege, finding instead that "the discoverability of the psychologist's consultation notes should be considered within the context of the more limited waiver doctrine applicable to the attorney-client privilege." Id. at 88 , 492 A. 2d 1020 . | 5 | 1994–1998 |
Stempler v. Speidell
green
2 sentences2019Petitioner's reliance on Stempler v. Speidell, 100 N.J. 368 (1985) in support of his argument that the physician-patient privilege afforded him the right to interview Dr. Grob ex parte is misplaced. 2019Petitioner's reliance on Stempler v. Speidell, 100 N.J. 368 (1985) in support of his argument that the physician-patient privilege afforded him the right to interview Dr. Grob ex parte is misplaced. | 4 | 2012–2019 |
State v. McBride
green
2 sentences1998"Although the psychologist-patient privilege affords even greater confidentiality than the physician-patient privilege, it still may be defeated where `common notions of fairness clearly compel at least limited disclosure of otherwise confidential communications.' " McBride, supra, 213 N.J.Super. at 270 , 517 A. 2d 152 (quoting Arena, supra, 201 N.J.Super. at 89 , 492 A. 2d 1020 ). 1998"Although the psychologist-patient privilege affords even greater confidentiality than the physician-patient privilege, it still may be defeated where `common notions of fairness clearly compel at least limited disclosure of otherwise confidential communications.' " McBride, supra, 213 N.J.Super. at 270 , 517 A. 2d 152 (quoting Arena, supra, 201 N.J.Super. at 89 , 492 A. 2d 1020 ). | 4 | 1994–1998 |
Osterman v. Ehrenworth
green
2 sentences2005Therefore, we conclude that the "information" a patient communicates in confidence to a physician or hospital that is protected from disclosure by the Physician-Patient privilege includes the patient's name and address. [4] See Hernandez, supra, 291 N.J.Super. at 476-77 , 677 A. 2d 811 ; Unick, supra, 107 N.J.Super. at 126-27 , 257 A. 2d 134 ; Osterman, supra, 106 N.J.Super. at 523-26 , 256 A. 2d 123 . 2005Therefore, we conclude that the "information" a patient communicates in confidence to a physician or hospital that is protected from disclosure by the Physician-Patient privilege includes the patient's name and address. [4] See Hernandez, supra, 291 N.J.Super. at 476-77 , 677 A. 2d 811 ; Unick, supra, 107 N.J.Super. at 126-27 , 257 A. 2d 134 ; Osterman, supra, 106 N.J.Super. at 523-26 , 256 A. 2d 123 . | 3 | 1979–2005 |
Stigliano v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Stigliano v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 140 N.J. 305, 311 , 658 A. 2d 715 (1995); Stempler v. Speidell, 100 N.J. 368, 373 , 495 A. 2d 857 (1985); see N.J.R.E. 506; N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.4. 2012Stigliano v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 140 N.J. 305, 311 , 658 A. 2d 715 (1995); Stempler v. Speidell, 100 N.J. 368, 373 , 495 A. 2d 857 (1985); see N.J.R.E. 506; N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.4. | 2 | 2010–2012 |
Graham v. Gielchinsky
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 310, 658 A. 2d 715 (citing Graham v. Gielchinsky, 126 N.J. 361, 373 , 599 A. 2d 149 (1991)). 2010Id. at 310, 658 A. 2d 715 (citing Graham v. Gielchinsky, 126 N.J. 361, 373 , 599 A. 2d 149 (1991)). | 2 | 1995–2010 |
Smith v. American Home Prod. Corp.
green
2 sentences2005However, plaintiffs’ counsel may communicate with the physicians, in writing only, regarding any concerns about the scope and the extent to which the plaintiffs continue to assert the physician-patient privilege, and the Authorization shall clearly indicate that the physician’s participation is voluntary. 38 This court, though following the same path, reaches a somewhat different result than Smith v. American Home Products Corp. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceutical, 372 N.J.Super. 105 , 855 A.2d 608 (Law Div.2003). 2005However, plaintiffs’ counsel may communicate with the physicians, in writing only, regarding any concerns about the scope and the extent to which the plaintiffs continue to assert the physician-patient privilege, and the Authorization shall clearly indicate that the physician’s participation is voluntary. 38 This court, though following the same path, reaches a somewhat different result than Smith v. American Home Products Corp. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceutical, 372 N.J.Super. 105 , 855 A.2d 608 (Law Div.2003). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Matter of Nackson
green
2 sentences1998"Like other privileges, it must in some circumstances yield to the higher demands of order." Matter of Nackson, 114 N.J. 527, 537 , 555 A. 2d 1101 (1989) (referring to the attorney-client privilege). 1998"Like other privileges, it must in some circumstances yield to the higher demands of order." Matter of Nackson, 114 N.J. 527, 537 , 555 A. 2d 1101 (1989) (referring to the attorney-client privilege). | 2 | 1994–1998 |
State v. Schreiber
green
2 sentences1995State v. Schreiber, 122 N.J. 579, 587 , 585 A.2d 945 (1991); McCormick, supra, § 103 at 384. 1995State v. Schreiber, 122 N.J. 579, 587 , 585 A.2d 945 (1991); McCormick, supra, § 103 at 384. | 2 | 1993–1995 |
Behringer Est. v. Princeton Med. Ctr.
green
2 sentences1992Estate of Behringer v. Princeton Medical Center, 249 N.J.Super. 597, 632 , 592 A.2d 1251 (Law Div.1991). 1992Estate of Behringer v. Princeton Medical Center, 249 N.J. | 2 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Yolanda Terry and Teron Savoy
green
2 sentences2022In Terry, the Court held that the version of N.J.R.E. 509 then in effect shielded confidential communications between spouses that were intercepted by a wiretap. 218 N.J. at 234-39 . 2022Terry, 218 N.J. at 241 ; see also N.J.R.E. 504(2)(a), 506(f), 511(2), 514, 519(b). 5 N.J.R.E. 501(2) codifies a different marital privilege, the spousal testimonial privilege; with exceptions, that rule bars the spouse or partner of the accused in a criminal case from testifying in a criminal action. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Goldberg
green
1 sentence2017Super. 255, 270 (App. Div. 1986) (recognizing that "the psychologist-patient privilege affords even greater confidentiality than the physician-patient privilege"), certif. denied, 107 N.J. 118 (1987). 16 A-2739-13T2 on an explicit exception to a privilege, and he has failed to justify piercing these privileges. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hernandez v. Overlook Hosp.
green
2 sentences2005Therefore, we conclude that the "information" a patient communicates in confidence to a physician or hospital that is protected from disclosure by the Physician-Patient privilege includes the patient's name and address. [4] See Hernandez, supra, 291 N.J.Super. at 476-77 , 677 A. 2d 811 ; Unick, supra, 107 N.J.Super. at 126-27 , 257 A. 2d 134 ; Osterman, supra, 106 N.J.Super. at 523-26 , 256 A. 2d 123 . 2005Therefore, we conclude that the "information" a patient communicates in confidence to a physician or hospital that is protected from disclosure by the Physician-Patient privilege includes the patient's name and address. [4] See Hernandez, supra, 291 N.J.Super. at 476-77 , 677 A. 2d 811 ; Unick, supra, 107 N.J.Super. at 126-27 , 257 A. 2d 134 ; Osterman, supra, 106 N.J.Super. at 523-26 , 256 A. 2d 123 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Unick v. Kessler Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2005Therefore, we conclude that the "information" a patient communicates in confidence to a physician or hospital that is protected from disclosure by the Physician-Patient privilege includes the patient's name and address. [4] See Hernandez, supra, 291 N.J.Super. at 476-77 , 677 A. 2d 811 ; Unick, supra, 107 N.J.Super. at 126-27 , 257 A. 2d 134 ; Osterman, supra, 106 N.J.Super. at 523-26 , 256 A. 2d 123 . 2005Therefore, we conclude that the "information" a patient communicates in confidence to a physician or hospital that is protected from disclosure by the Physician-Patient privilege includes the patient's name and address. [4] See Hernandez, supra, 291 N.J.Super. at 476-77 , 677 A. 2d 811 ; Unick, supra, 107 N.J.Super. at 126-27 , 257 A. 2d 134 ; Osterman, supra, 106 N.J.Super. at 523-26 , 256 A. 2d 123 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff
green
2 sentences1998The court continued: In that regard, we point to our recent decision in United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff, 196 N.J.Super. 553 , 483 A. 2d 821 (App.Div.1984). 1998The court continued: In that regard, we point to our recent decision in United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff, 196 N.J.Super. 553 , 483 A. 2d 821 (App.Div.1984). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re Selser
green
2 sentences1997We nevertheless add that the privilege advances secrecy, and thus “runs counter to the fundamental theory of our judicial system that the fullest disclosure of the facts will best lead to the truth and ultimately to the triumph of justice.” In re Selser, 15 N.J. 393, 405 , 105 A.2d 395 (1954). 1997We nevertheless add that the privilege advances secrecy, and thus “runs counter to the fundamental theory of our judicial system that the fullest disclosure of the facts will best lead to the truth and ultimately to the triumph of justice.” In re Selser, 15 N.J. 393, 405 , 105 A.2d 395 (1954). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Long
green
2 sentences1997See Ritt v. Ritt, 52 N.J. 177, 181, 244 A.2d 497 (1968); cf. State v. Long, 119 N.J. 439, 479 , 575 A.2d 435 (1990); Gabor v. Hyland, 166 N.J.Super. 275, 278-79 , 399 A.2d 993 (App.Div.1979). 1997See Ritt v. Ritt, 52 N.J. 177, 181, 244 A.2d 497 (1968); cf. State v. Long, 119 N.J. 439, 479 , 575 A.2d 435 (1990); Gabor v. Hyland, 166 N.J.Super. 275, 278-79 , 399 A.2d 993 (App.Div.1979). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gabor v. Hyland
green
2 sentences1997See Ritt v. Ritt, 52 N.J. 177, 181, 244 A.2d 497 (1968); cf. State v. Long, 119 N.J. 439, 479 , 575 A.2d 435 (1990); Gabor v. Hyland, 166 N.J.Super. 275, 278-79 , 399 A.2d 993 (App.Div.1979). 1997See Ritt v. Ritt, 52 N.J. 177, 181, 244 A.2d 497 (1968); cf. State v. Long, 119 N.J. 439, 479 , 575 A.2d 435 (1990); Gabor v. Hyland, 166 N.J.Super. 275, 278-79 , 399 A.2d 993 (App.Div.1979). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Stigliano v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Richbow v. District of Columbia green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Todd v. South Jersey Hospital System green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Cates v. Wilson green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Kurdek v. West Orange Educ. Bd. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Taylor v. West Penn Hospital neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Krygier v. Airweld, Inc. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Tarrant County Hospital District v. Hughes green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Laburre v. East Jefferson General Hosp. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Doe v. American Red Cross Blood Services, S.C. Region green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hospital Center green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Rasmussen v. South Florida Blood Service green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Sugar green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Sugar green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Figueroa green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Soney green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Soney green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Kessler v. Troum neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.