(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), confidential healthcare communications shall
not be subject to compulsory legal process in any type of judicial proceeding, and
a patient or his or her authorized representative has the right to refuse to disclose,
and to prevent a witness from disclosing, his or her confidential healthcare communications
in any judicial proceedings.
(b) The exemption from compulsory legal process and the privilege provided in subsection
(a) does not apply:
(1) When an individual introduces his or her physical or mental condition, including,
but not limited to, any allegation of mental anguish, mental suffering, or similar
condition, as an element of his or her claim or defense; provided, that a claim for
damages or other relief for “pain and suffering” based solely on one’s physical condition
shall not be deemed to constitute the introduction of one’s mental condition into
issue and the exemption and privilege applies in that situation only to those portions
of one’s confidential healthcare information relating to mental condition;
(2) When, in a civil or criminal commitment proceeding, a physician, in the course of
diagnosis, treatment, or medical evaluation of an individual, determines that an individual
is in need of care and treatment in a hospital or any other healthcare facility that
is deemed by the individual’s physician to be appropriate for mental illness;
(3) When a court finds that an individual, after having been informed that the communications
would not be privileged, has made communications to a psychiatrist in the course of
a psychiatric examination ordered by the court; provided, that the communications
shall be admissible only on issues involving the individual’s mental condition;
(4) When, in any court proceeding, including an ex parte hearing, it is demonstrated on
a prima facie basis to the court that the individual’s physical or mental condition
is of an imminent and serious danger to the physical or mental health of another person;
(5) When, in any action by a person pursuant to § 5-37.3-5(d), or in any policy action brought by an individual against his or her insurance carrier,
or by the carrier against an insured, it is demonstrated to the court that the confidential
healthcare information is relevant and material, that court may issue, in its discretion,
an order compelling production of this information;
(6) When, in any court proceeding, civil or criminal, the issue arises as to the ingestion
by an individual of intoxicating liquor, toluene, or any controlled substance as defined
in chapter 28 of title 21, upon motion by any party to that proceeding, and it is demonstrated to the court
that the confidential healthcare information is relevant and material, that court
may issue, in its discretion, an order compelling production of that information,
if any, that demonstrates the presence of alcohol in a concentration of one tenth
of one percent (.1%) or more by weight or the presence of a controlled substance in
that individual, as shown by a chemical analysis of a blood, breath, or urine sample,
if this test was originally performed at the direction of a law enforcement official
in accordance with § 31-27-2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1982–2010 · leading case:
Bartlett v. Danti, 503 A.2d 515 (R.I. 1986).
Bartlett v. Danti, 503 A.2d 515 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 13× “In addition to alleging that the information was irrelevant, defendant claimed the privilege against disclosure of confidential health-care information set forth in § 5-37.3-6. The plaintiffs objected and made an offer of proof in which they contended that defendant’s physical…”
State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 8× “1956 (1976 Reenactment) § 5-37.3-6, as enacted by P.L. 1978, ch. 297, § 1.”
State v. Guido, 698 A.2d 729 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 4× “In Bartlett this Court responded to a series of certified questions from the Superior Court regarding the constitutionality of § 5-37.3-6, a sister provision of the section now before us.”
Pastore v. Samson, 900 A.2d 1067 (R.I. 2006).
· cites it 2× “1986), this Court declared § 5-37.3-6 unconstitutional because it rendered confidential health-care information not subject to compulsory legal process in any judicial proceedings.”
In re Bd. of Med. Review Investigation, 463 A.2d 1373 (R.I. 1983).
· cites it 5× “3-4(b), which entitles the board to the release or transfer of confidential health-care infor *1375 mation without a patient’s consent, and § 5-37.3-6, which limits the instances in which confidential health-care information is subject to compulsory legal process, was…”
State v. Kholi, 672 A.2d 429 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1995 Reenactment) § 5-37.3-6(a): “confidential health care information shall not be subject to compulsory legal process in any type of proceeding, including, but not limited to, any civil or criminal case or legislative or administrative proceedings or in any pre-trial or…”
Washburn v. Rite Aid Corp., 695 A.2d 495 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 3× “§ 9-17-5), Rite Aid violated the Confidentiality Act when it simply mailed her con *498 fidential health-care information directly to Higgins.”
State v. Collins, 679 A.2d 862 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 2× “1986), this Court held that provisions of the Confidentiality of Health Care Information Act, G.L.1956 § 5-37.3-6, which exempted confidential health-care information from the compulsory legal process, impermissibly intruded on the judicial function.”
In re Doe, 717 A.2d 1129 (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, § 5-37.3-6 of the CHCIA provided that this information was not subject to compulsory legal process.”
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 441 A.2d 525 (R.I. 1982).
· cites it 2× “The trial justice found that § 5-37.3-6 of the act prohibited the grand jury from obtaining patient records in its investigation of the alleged Medicaid fraud.”
State v. Boss, 490 A.2d 34 (R.I. 1985).
· cites it 2× “According to § 5-37.3-6(2)(A), however, this privilege does not apply and the health-care information can be subject to legal process “when an individual introduces his physical or mental condition * * as an element of his claim or defense * *.”
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 748 A.2d 821 (R.I. 2000).
· cites it 5× “Although we recognize that Glat-ter’s petition rests upon § 5-37.3-6, 6 which requires an absolute ban on the disclosure of any confidential health care communication as that term is defined in § 5-37.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-37.3-6(2)(A): 1 case
State v. Boss, 490 A.2d 34 (R.I. 1985).
“According to § 5-37.3-6(2)(A), however, this privilege does not apply and the health-care information can be subject to legal process “when an individual introduces his physical or mental condition * * as an element of his claim or defense * *.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-37.3-6(a): 1 case
State v. Kholi, 672 A.2d 429 (R.I. 1996).
“1956 (1995 Reenactment) § 5-37.3-6(a): “confidential health care information shall not be subject to compulsory legal process in any type of proceeding, including, but not limited to, any civil or criminal case or legislative or administrative proceedings or in any pre-trial or…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-37.3-6(a)(1): 1 case
State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1994).
“1956 (1976 Reenactment) § 5-37.3-6, as enacted by P.L. 1978, ch. 297, § 1.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-37.3-6(a)(2): 2 cases
Bartlett v. Danti, 503 A.2d 515 (R.I. 1986).
“In addition to alleging that the information was irrelevant, defendant claimed the privilege against disclosure of confidential health-care information set forth in § 5-37.3-6. The plaintiffs objected and made an offer of proof in which they contended that defendant’s physical…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-37.3-6(a)(2)(A): 1 case
R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-37.3-6(a)(l): 3 cases
Bartlett v. Danti, 503 A.2d 515 (R.I. 1986).
“In addition to alleging that the information was irrelevant, defendant claimed the privilege against disclosure of confidential health-care information set forth in § 5-37.3-6. The plaintiffs objected and made an offer of proof in which they contended that defendant’s physical…”
State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1994).
“1956 (1976 Reenactment) § 5-37.3-6, as enacted by P.L. 1978, ch. 297, § 1.”
In re Bd. of Med. Review Investigation, 463 A.2d 1373 (R.I. 1983).
“3-4(b), which entitles the board to the release or transfer of confidential health-care infor *1375 mation without a patient’s consent, and § 5-37.3-6, which limits the instances in which confidential health-care information is subject to compulsory legal process, was…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 5-37.3-6(b): 1 case
State v. Kholi, 672 A.2d 429 (R.I. 1996).
“1956 (1995 Reenactment) § 5-37.3-6(a): “confidential health care information shall not be subject to compulsory legal process in any type of proceeding, including, but not limited to, any civil or criminal case or legislative or administrative proceedings or in any pre-trial or…”
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.