Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 59
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5929 (2026)

 Physicians not to disclose information.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5929.  Physicians not to disclose information.

No physician shall be allowed, in any civil matter, to disclose any information which he acquired in attending the patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, which shall tend to blacken the character of the patient, without consent of said patient, except in civil matters brought by such patient, for damages on account of personal injuries.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Moses v. McWilliams, 549 A.2d 950 (Pa. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Moses v. McWilliams, 549 A.2d 950 (Pa. 1988). · cites it 10× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5929 (emphasis added). By enacting this statute, our legislature has weighed competing policies to determine at what point the physician-patient privilege is lost or *161 surrendered and has concluded that this loss or surrender occurs when a party institutes a…”
Feingold v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 517 A.2d 1270 (Pa. 1986). · cites it 4× “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5929. [2] *575 The next issue concerns the appropriateness of the trial court's exclusion of the testimony of the common pleas judges who were offered as rebuttal witnesses by SEPTA.”
Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 610 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). · cites it 8× “These cases, while correctly setting forth the law under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5929, do not apply to 42 Pa.”
Grimminger v. Maitra, 887 A.2d 276 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5929 (emphasis added). The statute provides that the privilege is lost when a party institutes a civil matter on account of personal injuries.”
In Re the June 1979 Allegheny Cnty. Investigating Grand Jury, 415 A.2d 73 (Pa. 1980). · cites it 2× “2d 419, 426-30 (1978), I agree with the majority that the tissue sample reports subpoenaed here are not privileged under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5929. Nor do I see any constitutional impediment to the supervising court's order.”
Kraus v. Taylor, 710 A.2d 1142 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5929. The statutes appellant relies upon, however, lack similar provisions.”
Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Ctr., 609 A.2d 796 (Pa. 1992). · cites it 2× “Appellant Hospital argues that the discovery order in question would violate the recipients’ constitutional right of privacy and, additionally, alleges that the information sought is privileged and protected pursuant to the physician-patient privilege, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5929…”
O'Boyle v. Jensen, 150 F.R.D. 519 (M.D. Penn. 1993). · cites it 2× “March 10, 1987), after noting that “unlike the statute governing disclosures by physicians”, 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5929, the statute governing disclosures by licensed psychologists, 42 Pa.”
Burger v. Blair Med. Assocs., Inc., 964 A.2d 374 (Pa. 2009). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5929. 8 . We also credit Appellee’s argument, as discussed above, distinguishing the McGuire and Hams decisions.”
Buckman v. Verazin, 54 A.3d 956 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012). “Likewise, the Health System and the Hospital contend that the discovery request violates the physician-patient privilege, which is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5929, and states: No physician shall be allowed, in any civil matter, to disclose any information which he acquired in…”
Octave ex rel. Octave v. Walker, 103 A.3d 1255 (Pa. 2014). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5929; Ferrell v. Glen-Gery Brick, 678 F.”
Commonwealth v. Alexander, 708 A.2d 1251 (Pa. 1998). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5929. As is obvious from the language of the statute, the privilege applies only in civil matters.”
Show all 58 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.