physician-patient privilege in Missouri

2006Brandt v. Medical Defense Assoc., 856 S.W.2d 667, 669-670 (Mo. banc 1993).

2006Brandt v. Medical Defense Assoc., 856 S.W.2d 667, 669-670 (Mo. banc 1993).

2017Brandt v. Pelican, 856 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Mo. banc 1993).

2015Brandt v. Pelican, 856 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Mo. banc 1993).

2022McNutt v. Keet, 432 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Mo. banc 1968) (holding the physician-patient privilege may not be used as both a “shield and dagger.”). 9

1987McNutt v. Keet, 432 S.W.2d 597 (Mo.banc 1968), found that a plaintiff who puts his physical condition at issue implicitly waives the physician-patient privilege.

2014Notably, Defendant in the trial court proceedings expressly asserted that no in camera review was necessary, and that the material was discoverable, because Victim had waived the physician-patient privilege.6 Regardless of whether Victim waived the privilege, “a defendant is not entitled to information on the mere possibility that it might be helpful, but must make some plausible showing [, which is supported by fact,] how the information would have been material and favorable.” State v. Taylor, 134 S.W.3d 21, 26-7 (Mo. banc 2004) (quotations and footnote 6 Defendant requests an in camera revi

2014Notably, Defendant in the trial court proceedings expressly asserted that no in camera review was necessary, and that the material was discoverable, because Victim had waived the physician-patient privilege. 6 Regardless of whether Victim waived the privilege, “a defendant is not entitled to information on the mere possibility that it might be helpful, but must make some plausible showing!, which is supported by a factual predicate,] how the information would have been material and favorable.” Taylor, 134 S.W.3d at 26-7 (quotations and footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

2010State v. Lewis, 735 S.W.2d 183, 187 (Mo.App.

2005State v. Lewis, 735 S.W.2d 183, 187 (Mo.App.

2006Roth, 793 S.W.2d at 592 . 9 For evidence normally subject to the physician-patient privilege to be admissible, there must be an allegation or evidence of known or suspected child abuse or neglect.

1993As the court stated in Roth v. Roth, 793 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Mo.App.1990): In keeping with the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the statute we find § 210.140 prevents a party from invoking the physician-patient privilege in any custody proceedings involving known or suspected child abuse or neglect.

2024“The purpose of the physician-patient privilege is to enable the patient to secure complete and appropriate medical treatment by encouraging candid communication between patient and physician, free from fear of the possible embarrassment and invasion of privacy engendered by an unauthorized disclosure of information.” Lutman, 635 S.W.3d at 551 (quoting Dean, 182 S.W.3d at 567 ).

2024However, the physician-patient privilege is not absolute, and “[t]he fact that documents fall within the scope of the physician-patient privilege does not end the inquiry.” Id. at 551-52 (quoting State ex rel.

1998More precisely, “when a party once places the question of his mental condition in issue he thereby waives the physician-patient privilege to exclude testimony of any doctors who have examined him for that purpose.” State v. Carter, 641 S.W.2d 54, 57 (Mo. banc 1982).

1998More precisely, "when a party once places the question of his mental condition in issue he thereby waives the physician-patient privilege to exclude testimony of any doctors who have examined him for that purpose." State v. Carter, 641 S.W.2d 54, 57 (Mo. banc 1982).

2021Hayter v. Griffin, 785 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Mo. App. 1990), a denial of an allegation cannot constitute a waiver of the physician- patient privilege because to do so would force the patient to choose between suffering judgment by default or waiving the physician-patient privilege.”); see also Stinson, 316 S.W.3d at 918 (Mo. banc 2010) (holding: “The mere fact that Mr. Stinson has denied liability and is defending against the present suit does not constitute a waiver of the privilege.”). 5 Notably, Lutman’s statements to the investigating police officers at the scene of the accident are not protect

2021Hayter v. Griffin, 785 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Mo. App. 1990), a denial of an allegation cannot constitute a waiver of the physician- patient privilege because to do so would force the patient to choose between suffering judgment by default or waiving the physician-patient privilege.”); see also Stinson, 316 S.W.3d at 918 (Mo. banc 2010) (holding: “The mere fact that Mr. Stinson has denied liability and is defending against the present suit does not constitute a waiver of the privilege.”). 5 Notably, Lutman’s statements to the investigating police officers at the scene of the accident are not protect

2022Stinson v. House, 316 S.W.3d 915, 918 (Mo. banc 2010) (citation omitted). 3 The Physician-Patient Privilege Section 491.060(5) 1 governs the physician-patient privilege in Missouri.

2021Hayter v. Griffin, 785 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Mo. App. 1990), a denial of an allegation cannot constitute a waiver of the physician- patient privilege because to do so would force the patient to choose between suffering judgment by default or waiving the physician-patient privilege.”); see also Stinson, 316 S.W.3d at 918 (Mo. banc 2010) (holding: “The mere fact that Mr. Stinson has denied liability and is defending against the present suit does not constitute a waiver of the privilege.”). 5 Notably, Lutman’s statements to the investigating police officers at the scene of the accident are not protect

1991Benoit v. Randall, 431 S.W.2d 107, 109 (Mo.1968), defendant’s reliance upon the physician-patient privilege is nevertheless misplaced.

1991Benoit v. Randall, 431 S.W.2d 107, 109 (Mo.1968), defendant's reliance upon the physician-patient privilege is nevertheless misplaced.

1982State v. Sapp, 356 Mo. 705 , 203 S.W.2d 425, 429 (1947); State v. Cochran, 356 Mo. 778 , 203 S.W.2d 707, 711 (banc 1947); State v. Swinburne, 324 S.W.2d 746, 750-751 [4] (Mo. banc 1959); State v. Speedy, 543 S.W.2d 251, 256 (Mo.App.1976); State ex rel.

1982State v. Sapp, 356 Mo. 705 , 203 S.W.2d 425, 429 (1947); State v. Cochran, 356 Mo. 778 , 203 S.W.2d 707, 711 (banc 1947); State v. Swinburne, 324 S.W.2d 746, 750-751 [4] (Mo. banc 1959); State v. Speedy, 543 S.W.2d 251, 256 (Mo.App.1976); State ex rel.

1982State v. Sapp, 356 Mo. 705 , 203 S.W.2d 425, 429 (1947); State v. Cochran, 356 Mo. 778 , 203 S.W.2d 707, 711 (banc 1947); State v. Swinburne, 324 S.W.2d 746, 750-751 [4] (Mo. banc 1959); State v. Speedy, 543 S.W.2d 251, 256 (Mo.App.1976); State ex rel.

1982State v. Sapp, 356 Mo. 705 , 203 S.W.2d 425, 429 (1947); State v. Cochran, 356 Mo. 778 , 203 S.W.2d 707, 711 (banc 1947); State v. Swinburne, 324 S.W.2d 746, 750-751 [4] (Mo. banc 1959); State v. Speedy, 543 S.W.2d 251, 256 (Mo.App.1976); State ex rel.

2022This Court first explained a denial of an allegation does not constitute a waiver “because to do so would force the patient to choose between suffering judgment by default or waiving the physician-patient privilege[.]” Id.

2021“For the same reason that Dubis does not waive the privilege by filing an answer denying the allegations in Suzuki’s cross-petition that she was intoxicated, she does not waive the privilege by introducing non-medical evidence at trial.” Id. at 63-64 . 4 The Murrell family argues Lutman waived the physician-patient privilege at the scene of the accident by telling investigating police officers that he “blacked out,” “fainted,” or “had a heart attack.” 5 This argument is of no merit.

1998D.M. v. Hoester, 681 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. banc 1984), held: In keeping with the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the statute we find § 210.140 [RSMo 1986 4 ] prevents a party from invoking the physician-patient privilege in any custody proceedings involving known or suspected child abuse or neglect.

1998D.M. v. Hoester, 681 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. banc 1984), held: In keeping with the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the statute we find § 210.140 [RSMo 1986 [4] ] prevents a party from invoking the physician-patient privilege in any custody proceedings involving known or suspected child abuse or neglect.

2021Stecher v. Dowd, 912 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Mo. banc 1995).

2017Because the waiver of the physician-patient privilege is only as to the records that relate to the physical conditions at issue - under the pleadings, “It follows that medical authorizations must be tailored to the pleadings, and this can only be achieved on a ease-by-case basis.” Id. (emphasis added).

1994Griggs v. Griggs, 707 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Mo.App.1986).

1987Griggs v. Griggs, 707 S.W.2d 488 , 490[1] (Mo.App.1986).

2025Virgin v. Hopewell Center, 66 S.W.3d 21, 27 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001).

2021Physician disciplinary proceedings implicate important public interests: “The primary purpose of the statutes authorizing the Board to discipline a physician's license is to safeguard the public health and welfare.” Colyer v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 257 S.W.3d 139, 144 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (citation omitted).

2021See also State v. Ermatinger, 752 S.W.2d 344, 350 (Mo. App. 1988) (testifying at a deposition that a doctor was his treating physician did not waive the confidentiality of discussions pursuant to that treatment). 6 This Court is not persuaded that Lutman’s brief and nondescript statements to investigating police officers constituted an intent to waive the physician-patient privilege.

2014Section 577.037.1 provides that, ‘‘[u]pon the trial of any person for violation of any of the provisions ... or upon the trial of any criminal action ... arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition, the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood at the time of the act alleged as shown by any chemical analysis of the person’s blood, breath, saliva or urine is admissible in eviderice and the provisions of subdivision (5) of section 491.060, RSMo, [the physician-patient privilege] shall not prevent the admissibility

2009These provisions limit the scope of any social worker privilege; by their terms, “[sjection 210.140[, as well as §§ 337.636.5, and 337.689,] prevent[] a party from invoking the physician-patient privilege in any custody proceedings involving known or suspected child abuse or neglect.” Seyler v. Seyler, 201 S.W.3d 57, 63 (Mo.App.

2009E.D.2006); In re Marriage of Daneshfar, 953 S.W.2d 95, 102 (Mo.App.

2006Woytus v. Ryan, 776 S.W.2d 389, 392 (Mo. banc 1989).

2006See Pilger v. Pilger, 972 S.W.2d 628, 632 (Mo.App.