N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. » N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. / Title xxx / Chapter 329
New Hampshire Revised Statutes

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 329:26 (2026)

Confidential Communications

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NH-GCgc.nh.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    329:26 Confidential Communications. – The confidential relations and communications between a physician or surgeon licensed under provisions of this chapter and the patient of such physician or surgeon are placed on the same basis as those provided by law between attorney and client, and, except as otherwise provided by law, no such physician or surgeon shall be required to disclose such privileged communications. Confidential relations and communications between a patient and any person working under the supervision of a physician or surgeon that are customary and necessary for diagnosis and treatment are privileged to the same extent as though those relations or communications were with such supervising physician or surgeon. This section shall not apply to investigations and hearings conducted by the board of medicine under RSA 329, any other statutorily created health occupational licensing or certifying board conducting licensing, certifying, or disciplinary proceedings or hearings conducted pursuant to RSA 135-C:27-54 or RSA 464-A. This section shall also not apply to the release of blood or urine samples and the results of laboratory tests for drugs or blood alcohol content taken from a person for purposes of diagnosis and treatment in connection with the incident giving rise to the investigation for driving a motor vehicle while such person was under the influence of intoxicating liquors or controlled drugs. The use and disclosure of such information shall be limited to the official criminal proceedings.

Source. 1969, 386:1. 1977, 417:21. 1979, 322:21. 1983, 377:11. 1986, 212:2. 1995, 286:24. 1996, 267:2. 2000, 294:4. 2008, 353:1, eff. Sept. 5, 2008.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: In re Sandra H., 846 A.2d 513 (N.H. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Sandra H., 846 A.2d 513 (N.H. 2004). · cites it 4× “See RSA 329:26 (Supp. 2003); RSA 330-A:32 (Supp.”
State v. Davis, 12 A.3d 1271 (N.H. 2010). · cites it 6× “The form stated that Peters was, “pursuant to New Hampshire RSA 329:26 . . . requesting the release of any blood and urine samples and copies of any laboratory tests for blood alcohol content taken from this subject while in the care of the New London Hospital.”
State v. Elwell, 567 A.2d 1002 (N.H. 1989). · cites it 5× “He contended, inter alia, that he was entitled to assert the physician-patient privilege as found in New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 503 and in RSA 329:26. After a hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that: “Whether the drawing of blood…”
In re Search Warrant for Med. Records of C.T., 160 N.H. 214 (N.H. 2010). · cites it 4× “RSA 329:26 (Supp. 2009), the legislature’s latest codification of the physician-patient privilege, provides in pertinent part: The confidential relations and communications between a physician or surgeon licensed under provisions of this chapter and the patient of such physician…”
In re Kathleen M., 493 A.2d 472 (N.H. 1985). · cites it 6× “They present the common issue whether the physician-patient privilege set forth in RSA 329:26 is applicable to involuntary commitment hearings pursuant to RSA chapter 135-B.”
State v. Barka, 839 A.2d 837 (N.H. 2004). · cites it 3× “See RSA 329:26 (Supp. 2002); N.H.R. Ev. 503. The State never contested the privileged nature of the records, but argued that disclosure was essential for it to pursue or continue criminal prosecution.”
In Re Brenda H., 402 A.2d 169 (N.H. 1979). · cites it 3× “B are privileged under RSA 329:26 (Supp. 1977) and RSA 330-A:19.”
Mathews v. Becerra, 455 P.3d 277 (Cal. 2019). “§ 26-1-807 ; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 329:26 ; N.J. Stat.”
State v. Doyle, 321 A.3d 274, 2024 N.H. 25 (N.H. 2024). · cites it 10× “See RSA 329:26 (2017); RSA 330-A:32 (Supp. 2022).”
Nelson v. Lewis, 534 A.2d 720 (N.H. 1987). · cites it 2× “We note, at the outset, that the plaintiff’s contention that she has the right to refuse the defendant an ex parte interview with her physician is consistent with the physician-patient privilege established by RSA 329:26. RSA 329:26 provides in part that: “The confidential…”
State v. Nickerson, 780 A.2d 1257 (N.H. 2001). · cites it 3× “On appeal, the defendant first argues that the physician-patient privilege, as codified in RSA 329:26 (Supp. 2000), precludes the State from obtaining and using the results of a hospital blood test without the patient’s consent.”
State v. Lewis, 533 A.2d 358 (N.H. 1987). · cites it 2× “See RSA 329:26. That specific subject has not been briefed or argued.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
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.