CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 15-25-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2025

The State of Texas v. Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, and Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11

This case involves an appeal by the State of Texas against the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The State, as appellant, initially sued Dr. May C. Lau in Collin County, alleging violations of SB 14 and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and issued subpoenas in Dallas County to obtain medical records of 21 nonparty patients. The appellees, eleven nonparty patients, challenged these subpoenas in Dallas County, asserting physician-patient and mental health information privileges under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 176.6(e) and 192.6(a). The State argues that sovereign immunity prevents the Dallas County court from hearing these challenges and that the only proper forum is Collin County. The appellees contend that the Texas Supreme Court precedent dictates that rules of civil procedure apply to the State unless explicitly carved out, and that common law principles of sovereign immunity do not extend to discovery disputes.

Sovereign ImmunityDiscovery DisputeSubpoena ChallengeMedical RecordsPatient PrivilegeMental Health PrivilegeRules of Civil ProcedureRules of EvidenceAppellate LawPlea to Jurisdiction
References
191
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. ADJ8396609
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

KELLY SNOW vs. HEALTH NET, INC., SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding prior orders that compelled the release of her psychotherapist's records and quashed subpoenas. The applicant argued these records were privileged psychotherapist-patient communications, and the therapist was not a physician or psychologist, thus their records were not discoverable for QME review. The Board found that while the psychotherapist-patient privilege exists, it is subject to waiver when mental condition is placed in issue by the patient, but this waiver is limited to relevant records. The case was returned to the trial level to determine if Ms. Bradley's records are relevant to the disclosed psychiatric injury or unrelated.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash Subpoena Duces TecumPsychotherapist-patient privilegeQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 3209.3Administrative Director Rule 35Evidence Code section 1010Holder of the privilegeEvidence Code section 1013Evidence Code section 1014
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03327 [205 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Newman v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc.

Plaintiff Aja Newman appealed two orders related to discovery in her lawsuit against Mount Sinai for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, stemming from sexual assaults committed by defendant Dr. David Newman on her and three other patients. The Supreme Court had denied Newman's motions to compel discovery regarding the identities of the other patients and hospital workers, and granted Mount Sinai's cross-motion for a protective order, citing quality assurance and HIPAA privileges. The Appellate Division reversed both orders, ruling that Mount Sinai failed to prove entitlement to the quality assurance privilege for all requested documents and that the doctor-patient privilege does not cover incidents of abuse. The court also clarified that HIPAA regulations allow for disclosure subject to a qualified protective order. The Appellate Division granted Newman's motions, directing Mount Sinai to disclose patient identities under a protective order, provide identities of Newman's coworkers, produce party statements from ordinary business records, and prepare a privilege log for quality assurance materials for in camera review, remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Discovery DisputeNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionQuality Assurance PrivilegeHIPAADoctor-Patient PrivilegeSexual AssaultPatient ConfidentialityProtective OrderPrivilege Log
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. People

This opinion addresses an application filed by an unnamed hospital, referred to as the 'Petitioner,' seeking to quash two Grand Jury subpoenas duces tecum. These subpoenas, issued in August 1982 by the Deputy Attorney-General for Medicaid fraud control, sought patient medical records, including 'progress notes' and 'mechanical ventilation flow sheets.' The hospital argued against disclosure based on patient privacy rights and the physician-patient privilege. The court, presided over by Justice George J. Balbach, denied the application, reaffirming that a hospital under investigation for potential crimes against its patients cannot assert these privileges to obstruct a Grand Jury investigation. The decision emphasized the Grand Jury's broad investigatory powers and the principle that privileges are intended to protect patients, not shield alleged wrongdoers.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegePatient PrivacyMedicaid Fraud ControlHospital RecordsConfidentialityQuash SubpoenaCriminal InvestigationStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ex Parte Abell

John M. Abell, a psychologist, was held in contempt by the 126th District Court of Travis County for refusing to answer an interrogatory in a civil suit, which sought information about his sexual contact with other patients. Abell, the relator, sought release via a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the information was protected by the recently enacted Article 5561h, Tex.Rev. Civ.Stat.Ann., which established confidentiality for mental health patient information. The Texas Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that Article 5561h applied retroactively to the discovery order, creating a privilege that forbade disclosure of patient identities and related information. Consequently, the trial court's order was deemed unauthorized, and Abell was discharged from custody.

Habeas CorpusContempt of CourtDiscovery PrivilegePatient ConfidentialityPsychologist-Patient PrivilegeRetroactive LawVested RightsTexas Civil ProcedureMental Health LawProfessional Malpractice
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ackerson

In a felony driving while intoxicated trial, defendant Scott Ackerson moved to preclude the testimony of an emergency medical technician (EMT), Diane Wood, citing the physician-patient privilege under CPLR 4504(a). The court denied the motion, stating that evidentiary privileges, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed. The Legislature has not explicitly extended this privilege to EMTs, despite creating other specific privileges. The court found no evidence that the EMT acted as an agent for a physician. The opinion emphasized that an EMT's role is to stabilize patients, distinct from a physician's role of diagnosis and treatment, thus not falling within the purpose of the CPLR 4504 privilege.

PrivilegeEmergency Medical TechnicianEMTPhysician-Patient PrivilegeCPLR 4504Statutory InterpretationEvidentiary PrivilegeFelony DWITestimony PreclusionAgency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rockland County Department of Social Services ex rel. McM. v. Brian McM.

The case addresses the applicability of Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vii) to a nonparty mother's confidential communications with her psychologist and social worker during a child protective proceeding. The father, accused of sexually abusing his son, sought to subpoena the mother's records, which she moved to quash, citing privilege. The Family Court denied the motion regarding the psychologist, ruling that the privilege did not apply. This appellate court affirmed, holding that FCA § 1046 (a) (vii) abrogates psychologist-client and social worker-client privileges for all relevant evidence in child protective proceedings, not just for parties. It emphasized that the child's best interests in determining the truth of the abuse allegations and preventing unnecessary estrangement from the father outweigh the nonparty mother's confidentiality interests. The court ordered an in camera review of the subpoenaed records to determine their relevance.

Child Protective ServicesFamily Court Act Article 10Psychologist-Client PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegeChild Sexual Abuse AllegationsFact-Finding HearingSubpoena EnforcementNonparty Parent RightsIn Camera ReviewBest Interests of the Child
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Handicapped Child

The Orchard Park Central School District (District) sought a court-ordered subpoena for psychiatric and psychological records of an infant student from the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The District intended to use these records in an appeal initiated by the student's parents concerning the child's handicapping condition. The parents cross-moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the records were privileged and their consent for release had been withdrawn. Justice Thomas P. Flaherty ruled that no legislative exception existed to abrogate the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges in this context, especially over parental objection. Consequently, the court denied the District's motion for the subpoena and granted the parents' cross-motion to quash, underscoring the protection of confidential communications in a child's best interests.

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

Liberatore v. Liberatore

The court issued an amended decision and order concerning a child custody dispute within a matrimonial action. The father improperly obtained the notes and records of the child's psychiatrist and clinical psychologist using a HIPAA release, bypassing judicial process. The court ruled that such records, protected by patient/psychotherapist privilege (CPLR 4504, 4507), cannot be disclosed without court order, emphasizing the court's role as parens patriae and the child's best interests. It found that a parent has a conflict of interest in waiving privilege on behalf of a minor child, and that HIPAA does not grant unfettered parental access if state law prohibits it or if a professional deems it not in the child's best interest. Consequently, the court denied access to the records for both parties and their counsel, ordering their return to the providers or destruction by the attorney for the child.

Child CustodyMatrimonial LawPatient-Psychotherapist PrivilegeHIPAAJudicial ProcessParens PatriaeConfidentialityMinor's RightsBest Interests of the ChildTherapy Records
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 848 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational