La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3734 (2026)

Privileged communication between health care provider and patient

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§3734. Privileged communication between health care provider and patient

            A. As used in this Part:

            (1) "Communication" means the acquiring, recording or transmittal, of any information, in any manner whatsoever, concerning any facts, opinions or statements necessary to enable the health care provider to diagnose, treat, prescribe or to act for the patients; said communications may include, but are not limited to any and all medical records, office records, hospital records, charts, correspondence, memoranda, laboratory tests and results, x-rays, photographs, financial statements, diagnoses and prognoses.

            (2) "Health care provider" means a hospital, as defined in this Subsection, and means a person, corporation, facility, or institution licensed by the state to provide health care or professional services as a physician, hospital, dentist, registered or licensed practical nurse, pharmacist, optometrist, podiatrist, chiropractor, physical therapist, psychologist, social worker, or licensed professional counselor and an officer, employee, or agent thereof acting in the course and scope of his employment.

            (3) "Hospital" means any hospital as defined in R.S. 40:2102; any "nursing home" or "home" as defined in R.S. 40:2009.2; or any health care provider's offices or clinics containing facilities for the examination, diagnosis, treatment or care of human illness.

            (4) "Patient" means a natural person who receives health care from a licensed health care provider.

            (5) "Representative" means the spouse, parent, tutor, curator, trustee, attorney or other legal agent of the patient.

            B. In noncriminal proceedings, testimonial privileges, exceptions, and waiver with respect to communications between a health care provider and his patient are governed by the Louisiana Code of Evidence.

            C. An action or proceeding described in Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 510(B)(2) which constitutes an exception for a health care provider to testify at a trial on the merits also shall be an exception for purposes of any discovery method authorized by Article 1421 et seq. of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.

            D. Nothing in this Section shall preclude the health care provider from disclosing privileged information by medical report either before or after any legal proceedings are instituted, provided that he is in receipt of a written authorization executed by the patient. If the health care provider knows or reasonably believes that the patient is physically or mentally incapable of authorizing release, the health care provider may disclose privileged information provided he is in receipt of a written authorization executed by a person authorized under R.S. 40:1299.40 to consent to medical treatment for the patient. Furthermore, when a patient is represented by an attorney and that attorney provides the health care provider with written authorization executed by the patient, the health care provider may disclose to the attorney any communication which was necessary to enable him to diagnose, treat, prescribe, or act for the patient and may provide to the attorney, as agent for the patient, any medical reports, X-rays, or any other written information the health care provider has regarding the patient, all without the necessity of complying with formal discovery.

            E.(1) In addition to any other provision of law permitting the subpoena of health care provider records, a party may obtain the health care provider records and communications defined by Subsection A of this Section of a patient to the extent permitted by Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 510(B)(2)(i) pursuant to a lawful subpoena, summons, or court order served upon the custodian of records of the health care provider, in accordance with the requirements of R.S. 13:3715.1.

            (2) No health care provider, custodian of records, officer, employee, or agent thereof shall be held civilly or criminally liable for the disclosure of a patient's records including any communication defined by Subsection A of this Section to the extent permitted by Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 510(B)(2)(i) when that disclosure is made in accordance with R.S. 13:3715.1.

            F. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, when conducting any investigation, the coroner or his authorized agents or employees may review any medical or dental records which he deems relevant to the investigation. Such records may be made available to him by the custodian thereof without the necessity of authorization, subpoena, or court order. No health care provider, custodian of records, or officer, employee, or agent thereof shall be held civilly or criminally liable for the disclosure of a patient's records, including any communication defined herein, when that disclosure is made pursuant to a request by the coroner or his authorized agents or employees.

            G. Notwithstanding any provision of this Section or any other law to the contrary, an official of another state, whose functions are comparable to those of a coroner in this state and who is conducting an investigation in which Louisiana medical or dental records are material evidence, may request authorization for the release of those records from the coroner of the parish in which the custodian of the records is located. If the coroner determines that the requested records are relevant to the out-of-state investigation and the release of those records is appropriate, then the coroner shall authorize the custodian of those records to release those records to the requesting official. No health care provider, custodian of records, or officer, employee, or agent thereof shall be held civilly or criminally liable for the disclosure of a patient's records, including any communication defined herein, pursuant to a release authorized by the coroner.

            H. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, when conducting any investigation, the coroner or his authorized agents or employees may obtain any blood, urine, or other biological fluids or samples which he deems relevant to the investigation, the records of which would otherwise be available to the coroner pursuant to Subsection F of this Section. Such blood, urine, or other biological fluids or samples may be made available to him by the custodian thereof without the necessity of authorization, subpoena, or court order. No health care provider, custodian of records, or officer, employee, or agent thereof shall be held civilly or criminally liable for the release of a deceased patient's blood, urine, or other biological fluids or samples, including any communication defined herein, when that disclosure is made pursuant to a request by the coroner or his authorized agents or employees.

            Acts 1968, No. 499, §1; Amended by Acts 1977, No. 670, §1; Acts 1978, No. 430, §1; Acts 1985, No. 477, §1; Acts 1986, No. 496, §§1, 2, eff. July 2, 1986; Acts 1987, No. 892, §3, eff. July 20, 1987; Acts 1990, No. 46, §1, eff. June 26, 1990; Acts 1991, No. 473, §1, eff. July 15, 1991; Acts 1992, No. 376, §4, eff. Jan. 1, 1993; Acts 1992, No. 395, §1; Acts 1993, No. 988, §§1 and 3; Acts 1999, No. 520, §1; Acts 1999, No. 1309, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 2000; Acts 2018, No. 144, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65 cases, 1971–2014 · leading case: Laburre v. East Jefferson Gen. Hosp., 555 So. 2d 1381 (La. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Laburre v. East Jefferson Gen. Hosp., 555 So. 2d 1381 (La. 1990). · cites it 5× “R.S. 13:3734. In addition the Blood Center argued that the donors had the right to privacy under both the Louisiana and United States Constitutions which prevented the release of their names and addresses in connection with their blood donations.”
Jackson v. Dendy, 638 So. 2d 1182 (La. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 11× “R.S. 13:3734 which provided for the health care provider—patient privilege in civil cases much as we know it today.”
Moss v. State, 925 So. 2d 1185 (La. 2006). · cites it 2× “499, which enacted LSA-R.S. 13:3734. Laburre, 555 So.2d at 1383 ; Darryl J.”
Mitchell v. Villien, 19 So. 3d 557 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “R.S. 13:3734 states: E(2) No health care provider .”
Arsenaux v. Arsenaux, 428 So. 2d 427 (La. 1983). · cites it 4× “THE MEDICAL PRIVILEGE LSA-R.S. 13:3734 provides that, in civil cases, a patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose any communication made to a health care provider which enables the provider to diagnose, treat, prescribe or act for the patient except in certain instances.”
Margaret S. v. Edwards, 488 F. Supp. 181 (E.D. La. 1980). · cites it 2× “La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13:3734(B) (West Supp.”
Hill v. East Baton Rouge Par., 925 So. 2d 17 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “R.S. 13:3734, a statute entitled "Privileged communications between a health care provider and a patient.”
Wheelahan v. Wheelahan, 557 So. 2d 1046 (La. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “R.S. 13:3734. The exceptions listed in R.”
Williams v. Sistrunk, 417 So. 2d 14 (La. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “The trial court maintained defendant's exception of no cause of action, based upon LSA-R.S. 13:3734, and dismissed the petition.”
Dawes v. Dawes, 454 So. 2d 311 (La. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “146 create an additional exception to the doctor/patient privilege? (3) If no new exception has been created, did the plaintiff waive the privilege? The doctor/patient privilege is provided for by statute, which reads, in pertinent part: R.S. 13:3734: Privileged communication…”
In Re Subpoena Served Upon Jorge S. Zuniga, M.D. In Re Subpoena Served Upon Gary R. Pierce, M.D., 714 F.2d 632 (6th Cir. 1983). “215; La. Rev.Stat. § 13:3734; Maine Rules of Ev.”
Flowers v. Dept. of Revenue & Taxation, 507 So. 2d 240 (La. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Pettigrew was privileged pursuant to LSA R.S. 13:3734 and 37:2366. The testimony revealed that appellant specifically asked Dr.”
Show all 65 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3734(A)(1): 7 cases
In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 254 F.R.D. 50 (E.D.N.Y 2008).
Hill v. East Baton Rouge Par., 925 So. 2d 17 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 13:3734, a statute entitled "Privileged communications between a health care provider and a patient.”
Miller v. Miller, 161 So. 3d 690 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Boutte v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 674 So. 2d 299 (La. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Chehardy, 157 So. 3d 21 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3734(A)(3): 1 case
State v. Chehardy, 157 So. 3d 21 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3734(A)(4): 1 case
Hill v. East Baton Rouge Par., 925 So. 2d 17 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 13:3734, a statute entitled "Privileged communications between a health care provider and a patient.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3734(A)(5): 2 cases
Hill v. East Baton Rouge Par., 925 So. 2d 17 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 13:3734, a statute entitled "Privileged communications between a health care provider and a patient.”
Carney v. Carney, 525 So. 2d 357 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3734(B): 13 cases
Margaret S. v. Edwards, 488 F. Supp. 181 (E.D. La. 1980). “La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13:3734(B) (West Supp.”
Moss v. State, 925 So. 2d 1185 (La. 2006). “499, which enacted LSA-R.S. 13:3734. Laburre, 555 So.2d at 1383 ; Darryl J.”
Matter of Rozas Gibson Pharmacy of Eunice, Inc., 382 So. 2d 929 (La. 1980).
Williams v. Sistrunk, 417 So. 2d 14 (La. Ct. App. 1982). “The trial court maintained defendant's exception of no cause of action, based upon LSA-R.S. 13:3734, and dismissed the petition.”
Jackson v. Dendy, 638 So. 2d 1182 (La. Ct. App. 1994). “R.S. 13:3734 which provided for the health care provider—patient privilege in civil cases much as we know it today.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3734(C): 6 cases
Jackson v. Dendy, 638 So. 2d 1182 (La. Ct. App. 1994). “R.S. 13:3734 which provided for the health care provider—patient privilege in civil cases much as we know it today.”
Coutee v. Beurlot, 943 So. 2d 637 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
Carney v. Carney, 525 So. 2d 357 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
Michel v. State, Div. of Admin. Law, 167 So. 3d 654 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Adams v. Deaton, Inc., 694 So. 2d 482 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3734(C)(3): 1 case
Succession of Smith v. Kavanaugh, Pierson & Talley, 513 So. 2d 1138 (La. 1987).
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3734(C)(6): 1 case
Jackson v. Dendy, 638 So. 2d 1182 (La. Ct. App. 1994). “R.S. 13:3734 which provided for the health care provider—patient privilege in civil cases much as we know it today.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 13:3734(D): 1 case
Sparks v. Donovan, 884 So. 2d 1276 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.