patient-physician privilege in Colorado

2016However, the General Assembly has provided a statutory exception to that gener *473 al rule: the privilege does , not apply to a medical provider, ‘who. was in consultation with a physician, surgeon, or registered professional nurse being sued ... on the case out of which said suit arises.’” Id. at 981 (quoting § 13 — 90—107(l)(d)(II), C.R.S. 2015) (emphasis in original). ¶52 Where the statutory exception to the patient-physician privilege applies, a trial court may grant a party’s request to meet with a treating physician ex parte.

2006See Sommerfeld v. Griffith, 173 Minn. 51 , 216 N.W. 311 (1927)(bank officials sued by wife whose husband had fraudulently persuaded her to convey property to them, may not invoke the statute protecting communications between husband and wife); State v. Szemple, 135 N.J. 406 , 640 A.2d 817 (1994)(the marital communications privilege is personal to the spouses, and does not apply to third parties); People v. Melski, 10 N.Y.2d 78 , 217 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 176 N.E.2d 81 (1961)(spousal privilege belongs to the spouse against whom the testimony is offered); Diehl v. Wilmot Castle Co., 26 Ohio St.2d 249 ,

2006See Sommerfeld v. Griffith, 173 Minn. 51 , 216 N.W. 311 (1927)(bank officials sued by wife whose husband had fraudulently persuaded her to convey property to them, may not invoke the statute protecting communications between husband and wife); State v. Szemple, 135 N.J. 406 , 640 A.2d 817 (1994)(the marital communications privilege is personal to the spouses, and does not apply to third parties); People v. Melski, 10 N.Y.2d 78 , 217 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 176 N.E.2d 81 (1961)(spousal privilege belongs to the spouse against whom the testimony is offered); Diehl v. Wilmot Castle Co., 26 Ohio St.2d 249 ,

2006See Sommerfeld v. Griffith, 173 Minn. 51 , 216 N.W. 311 (1927)(bank officials sued by wife whose husband had fraudulently persuaded her to convey property to them, may not invoke the statute protecting communications between husband and wife); State v. Szemple, 135 N.J. 406 , 640 A.2d 817 (1994)(the marital communications privilege is personal to the spouses, and does not apply to third parties); People v. Melski, 10 N.Y.2d 78 , 217 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 176 N.E.2d 81 (1961)(spousal privilege belongs to the spouse against whom the testimony is offered); Diehl v. Wilmot Castle Co., 26 Ohio St.2d 249 ,

2006See Sommerfeld v. Griffith, 173 Minn. 51 , 216 N.W. 311 (1927)(bank officials sued by wife whose husband had fraudulently persuaded her to convey property to them, may not invoke the statute protecting communications between husband and wife); State v. Szemple, 135 N.J. 406 , 640 A.2d 817 (1994)(the marital communications privilege is personal to the spouses, and does not apply to third parties); People v. Melski, 10 N.Y.2d 78 , 217 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 176 N.E.2d 81 (1961)(spousal privilege belongs to the spouse against whom the testimony is offered); Diehl v. Wilmot Castle Co., 26 Ohio St.2d 249 ,

2006See Sommerfeld v. Griffith, 173 Minn. 51 , 216 N.W. 311 (1927)(bank officials sued by wife whose husband had fraudulently persuaded her to convey property to them, may not invoke the statute protecting communications between husband and wife); State v. Szemple, 135 N.J. 406 , 640 A.2d 817 (1994)(the marital communications privilege is personal to the spouses, and does not apply to third parties); People v. Melski, 10 N.Y.2d 78 , 217 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 176 N.E.2d 81 (1961)(spousal privilege belongs to the spouse against whom the testimony is offered); Diehl v. Wilmot Castle Co., 26 Ohio St.2d 249 ,

2006See Sommerfeld v. Griffith, 173 Minn. 51 , 216 N.W. 311 (1927)(bank officials sued by wife whose husband had fraudulently persuaded her to convey property to them, may not invoke the statute protecting communications between husband and wife); State v. Szemple, 135 N.J. 406 , 640 A.2d 817 (1994)(the marital communications privilege is personal to the spouses, and does not apply to third parties); People v. Melski, 10 N.Y.2d 78 , 217 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 176 N.E.2d 81 (1961)(spousal privilege belongs to the spouse against whom the testimony is offered); Diehl v. Wilmot Castle Co., 26 Ohio St.2d 249 ,

2004People v. Covington, 19 P.3d 15 (Colo.2001).

1992Id. at 1140-41 .

1984M.P.C., the Superior Court of New Jersey summarized the basis for such exception as follows: [I]n the usual case, the patient-physician privilege must give way where it conflicts with the sensible administration of the law and policy relating to drunken driving by persons who (1) in an appropriate fashion have been apprehended by the police with probable cause to believe that they have been driving while intoxicated, and (2) have been caused by the police to be taken to an appropriate medical facility for the purpose, among others, of a blood alcohol test. 165 N.J.Super. at 136-37 , 397 A.2d a

1984M.P.C., the Superior Court of New Jersey summarized the basis for such exception as follows: [I]n the usual case, the patient-physician privilege must give way where it conflicts with the sensible administration of the law and policy relating to drunken driving by persons who (1) in an appropriate fashion have been apprehended by the police with probable cause to believe that they have been driving while intoxicated, and (2) have been caused by the police to be taken to an appropriate medical facility for the purpose, among others, of a blood alcohol test. 165 N.J.Super. at 136-37 , 397 A.2d a