Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1969–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dillenbeck v. Hessgreen2 sentences2009Contrary to the claim raised for the first time on appeal, defendants’ request for a list of decedent’s prior treating physicians and for authorization to release their medical records was not protected by the patient-physician privilege, which plaintiff waived with respect to those physical conditions that she affirmatively placed in issue in this lawsuit, namely, decedent’s death allegedly due to defendants’ failure to compare decedent’s test results with prior ones on record (see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]; Rothstein v Huh, 60 AD3d 839, 839 [2009]; Rossi v Budget Rent A Car/ 1992Because plaintiff has affirmatively placed his physical condition in controversy, he has waived the patient-physician privilege (Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278 ; Wachtman v Trocaire Coll., 143 AD2d 527 ). | 2 | 3 |
Muniz v. Preferred Associatesgreen2 sentences2022Plaintiff failed to obtain a waiver of the patient-physician privilege from Jones ( see Muniz v Preferred Assoc. , 189 AD2d 738, 739 [1st Dept 1993]; accord Monica W. v Milevoi , 252 AD2d 260, 262-263 [1st Dept 1999]; Mullen v Wishner , 172 AD3d 1386 , 1388-1389 [2d Dept 2019]) and does not claim to have undertaken any efforts to locate Jones and notify him of her disclosure request ( see 45 CFR § 164.512 [e][1][iii]). 2022Plaintiff failed to obtain a waiver of the patient-physician privilege from Jones ( see Muniz v Preferred Assoc. , 189 AD2d 738, 739 [1st Dept 1993]; accord Monica W. v Milevoi , 252 AD2d 260, 262-263 [1st Dept 1999]; Mullen v Wishner , 172 AD3d 1386 , 1388-1389 [2d Dept 2019]) and does not claim to have undertaken any efforts to locate Jones and notify him of her disclosure request ( see 45 CFR § 164.512 [e][1][iii]). | 2 | 2 |
Monica W. v. Milevoigreen2 sentences2022Plaintiff failed to obtain a waiver of the patient-physician privilege from Jones ( see Muniz v Preferred Assoc. , 189 AD2d 738, 739 [1st Dept 1993]; accord Monica W. v Milevoi , 252 AD2d 260, 262-263 [1st Dept 1999]; Mullen v Wishner , 172 AD3d 1386 , 1388-1389 [2d Dept 2019]) and does not claim to have undertaken any efforts to locate Jones and notify him of her disclosure request ( see 45 CFR § 164.512 [e][1][iii]). 2022Plaintiff failed to obtain a waiver of the patient-physician privilege from Jones ( see Muniz v Preferred Assoc. , 189 AD2d 738, 739 [1st Dept 1993]; accord Monica W. v Milevoi , 252 AD2d 260, 262-263 [1st Dept 1999]; Mullen v Wishner , 172 AD3d 1386 , 1388-1389 [2d Dept 2019]) and does not claim to have undertaken any efforts to locate Jones and notify him of her disclosure request ( see 45 CFR § 164.512 [e][1][iii]). | 2 | 2 |
Rothstein v. Chihee Huhgreen2 sentences2009Contrary to the claim raised for the first time on appeal, defendants’ request for a list of decedent’s prior treating physicians and for authorization to release their medical records was not protected by the patient-physician privilege, which plaintiff waived with respect to those physical conditions that she affirmatively placed in issue in this lawsuit, namely, decedent’s death allegedly due to defendants’ failure to compare decedent’s test results with prior ones on record (see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]; Rothstein v Huh, 60 AD3d 839, 839 [2009]; Rossi v Budget Rent A Car/ 2009Given this waiver, defendants were entitled to full disclosure regarding decedent’s medical treatment, if any, prior to the date of the alleged negligence, including the furnishing of medical authorizations for those records (see CPLR 3121 [a]; Rossi v Budget Rent A Car/Budget Car & Truck Rental, 49 AD3d at 1089 ; Poser v Varnovitsky, 46 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2007]; see also Rothstein v Huh, 60 AD3d at 839 ). | 1 | 1 |
Poser v. Varnovitskygreen1 sentence2009Given this waiver, defendants were entitled to full disclosure regarding decedent’s medical treatment, if any, prior to the date of the alleged negligence, including the furnishing of medical authorizations for those records (see CPLR 3121 [a]; Rossi v Budget Rent A Car/Budget Car & Truck Rental, 49 AD3d at 1089 ; Poser v Varnovitsky, 46 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2007]; see also Rothstein v Huh, 60 AD3d at 839 ). | 1 | 1 |
Rossi v. Budget Rent A Cargreen2 sentences2009Contrary to the claim raised for the first time on appeal, defendants’ request for a list of decedent’s prior treating physicians and for authorization to release their medical records was not protected by the patient-physician privilege, which plaintiff waived with respect to those physical conditions that she affirmatively placed in issue in this lawsuit, namely, decedent’s death allegedly due to defendants’ failure to compare decedent’s test results with prior ones on record (see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]; Rothstein v Huh, 60 AD3d 839, 839 [2009]; Rossi v Budget Rent A Car/ 2009Given this waiver, defendants were entitled to full disclosure regarding decedent’s medical treatment, if any, prior to the date of the alleged negligence, including the furnishing of medical authorizations for those records (see CPLR 3121 [a]; Rossi v Budget Rent A Car/Budget Car & Truck Rental, 49 AD3d at 1089 ; Poser v Varnovitsky, 46 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2007]; see also Rothstein v Huh, 60 AD3d at 839 ). | 1 | 1 |
Weingart v. Varisanogreen1 sentence1996Nor did he testify that he could not recall the events leading up to and including the accident " 'to excuse the conduct complained of by the plaintiff ” (Dillenbeck v Hess, supra, at 288; see, Williams v McGinty, supra, at 619). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
ELMIRA TEACHERS'ASSN. v. Elmira City School Dist.
green
1 sentence2009Contrary to the claim raised for the first time on appeal, defendants’ request for a list of decedent’s prior treating physicians and for authorization to release their medical records was not protected by the patient-physician privilege, which plaintiff waived with respect to those physical conditions that she affirmatively placed in issue in this lawsuit, namely, decedent’s death allegedly due to defendants’ failure to compare decedent’s test results with prior ones on record (see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]; Rothstein v Huh, 60 AD3d 839, 839 [2009]; Rossi v Budget Rent A Car/ | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Wachtman v. Trocaire College
green
1 sentence1992Because plaintiff has affirmatively placed his physical condition in controversy, he has waived the patient-physician privilege (Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278 ; Wachtman v Trocaire Coll., 143 AD2d 527 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Vaupel v. Church Charity Foundation
green
1 sentence1980The court (p 542) rejected this argument and ordered discovery agreeing with the dissent in Vaupel v Church Charity Foundation of Long Is. ( 49 AD2d 932 ) a Second Department case stating "[T]o preclude plaintiff from calling as witnesses physicians who treated her would allow a plaintiff to use the patient-physician privilege as a sword rather than a shield.” The Second Department in a November, 1976 decision in Moses v Woodbury ( 54 AD2d 961 ) held: "The generally accepted liberal interpretation of CPLR article 31 compels the conclusion that the medical reports sought are material and releva | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Moses v. Woodbury
neutral
1 sentence1980The court (p 542) rejected this argument and ordered discovery agreeing with the dissent in Vaupel v Church Charity Foundation of Long Is. ( 49 AD2d 932 ) a Second Department case stating "[T]o preclude plaintiff from calling as witnesses physicians who treated her would allow a plaintiff to use the patient-physician privilege as a sword rather than a shield.” The Second Department in a November, 1976 decision in Moses v Woodbury ( 54 AD2d 961 ) held: "The generally accepted liberal interpretation of CPLR article 31 compels the conclusion that the medical reports sought are material and releva | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Minuteman Research, Inc. v. Lefkowitz
green
1 sentence1980In Matter of Minuteman Research v Lefkowitz ( 69 Misc 2d 330, 331 ) the court held that the law provides “that relevancy, and not quantity, is the test of the validity of a subpoena.” The court cited as a dramatic example the case of Matter of Borden Co. ( 75 F Supp 857, 860 ) where a subpoena was held valid even though “ ‘[compliance still involved delivering 10 truck loads, approximately 50 tons, of files to the Antitrust Division. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Petition of Borden Co.
green
1 sentence1980In Matter of Minuteman Research v Lefkowitz ( 69 Misc 2d 330, 331 ) the court held that the law provides “that relevancy, and not quantity, is the test of the validity of a subpoena.” The court cited as a dramatic example the case of Matter of Borden Co. ( 75 F Supp 857, 860 ) where a subpoena was held valid even though “ ‘[compliance still involved delivering 10 truck loads, approximately 50 tons, of files to the Antitrust Division. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co.
green
1 sentence1980Co. 21 NY2d 403 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Milano v. State
neutral
1 sentence1969(See Milano v. State of New York, 44 Misc 2d 290 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.