TBA Law Blog


Posted by: Kreis White on Mar 6, 2015

S. W., BY HEATHER WARREN AND THOMAS C. WARREN, AS HIS NATURAL PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.
With concurring opinion.
Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Michael L. Robb, Marcy D. Magee and Kenneth M. Walker II, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Pediatrics East, P. C. & Robert Higginbotham, M.D.

Michael McLaren, Jana Lamana, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Dr. Parvey and Diagnostic Imaging Professional Corporation.

Emily Landry and Julia Kavanagh, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals.

Katherine M. Anderson, and Karen Koplon, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Dr. Gilmore and Pediatric Emergency Specialists.

Richard Glassman, Robert Cox, and Lauran G. Stimac, Memphis Tennessee, for the appellees,S.W. by Heather Warren and Thomas C. Warren.

Judge: GOLDIN

This is a healthcare liability action. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion for a qualified protective order pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(f)(1), but set-forth several conditions, including: 1) a court reporter must be present at the ex parte interviews with Plaintiff’s treating healthcare providers and record all questions and answers; 2) all answers during the interviews must be under oath; 3) the interview transcripts shall be filed under seal and with permission of the trial court, and after showing of good cause, Plaintiff may access the transcripts for the purpose of determining whether a violation of privacy under HIPAA occurred during the interviews; and 4) Defendants should not attempt to elicit or discuss protected health information which is not relevant to the issues in this lawsuit. The order also provided “[t]his does not restrict the Defendants or their attorneys from discussing non-substantive matters unrelated to the patient’s protected health information.” The trial court denied Defendants’ joint motion for interlocutory appeal of the order and Defendants filed an application for extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We granted the appeal for the sole purpose of determining whether, under section 29-26-121(f), the trial court erred by adding the four conditions noted above to its order. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.

.PDF Version of Case

DINKINS concurring

STAFFORD concurring

Comment on this Article