Palm v. Holocker

2017 IL App (3d) 170087

92 N.E.3d 615

Scarlett PALM, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Ruben HOLOCKER, Defendant

(Karl Bayer, Contemnor–Appellant).

Appeal No. 3–17–0087

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed December 11, 2017

Daniel E. Compton and Karl E. Bayer, of Compton Law Group, of Elgin, for appellant.

Philip M. O'Donnell and Christopher H. Sokn, of Kingery Durree & O'Donnell, Associates, of Peoria, for appellee.

JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Scarlett Palm filed a personal injury lawsuit against Ruben Holocker on June 22, 2016. Contemnor, Karl Bayer, represented Holocker. Contemnor invited civil contempt to challenge the circuit court's discovery order that compelled Holocker to answer written discovery. He argues that Holocker's statutory physician-patient privilege ( 735 ILCS 5/8–802 (West 2016) ) protects his private medical information from discovery unless he affirmatively places his physical or mental health at issue. Palm counters that the physician-patient privilege does not apply in civil cases where the defendant's physical or mental health is relevant to the case; the statute does not require the defendant-patient to affirmatively place his or her health at issue. We agree with contemnor. We reverse the circuit court's discovery order and vacate its contempt order.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Palm's complaint alleged that on October 18, 2014, Holocker struck Palm, a pedestrian, with his vehicle at a crosswalk in Lacon. Palm alleged that Holocker failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to stop at a stop sign, and failed to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian.

¶ 4 Holocker's answer admitted that his vehicle struck Palm; however, he denied liability. He filed an affirmative defense, which claimed that Palm improperly crossed the street, failed to keep a proper lookout, and was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when she crossed the street. Holocker further alleged that Palm's negligence rendered her 50% or more at fault for her injuries. Palm denied Holocker's allegations.

¶ 5 During initial discovery, Palm sent Holocker the motor vehicle interrogatories provided in the appendix to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213 (eff. Jan. 1, 2007). Interrogatory No. 20 of the Motor Vehicle Interrogatories to Defendants asks:

"20. Do you have any medical and/or physical condition which required a physician's report and/or letter of approval in order to drive? If so, state the nature of the medical and/or physical condition, the physician or other health care professional who issued the letter and/or report, and the names and addresses of any physician or other health care professional who treated you for this condition prior to the occurrence." Ill. S. Ct. R. 213, Appendix.

¶ 6 In response, Holocker disclosed that he needed a letter of approval for "diabetic reasons." He also disclosed the physician who writes his letters, Dr. Nau, and admitted the Secretary of State once suspended his license when Dr. Nau "failed to sign [a] medical authorization."

¶ 7 Holocker objected to the two ensuing interrogatories. They requested Holocker to:

"21. State the name and address of any physician, ophthalmologist, optician or other health care professional who performed any eye examination of you within the last five years and the dates of each such examination.

22. State the name and address of any physician or other health care professional who examined and/or treated you within the last 10 years and the reason for such examination and/or treatment." Ill. S. Ct. R. 213, Appendix.

¶ 8 Holocker's objections claimed that these interrogatories "violate [ ] HIPAA, doctor-patient privilege, and the Defendant has not placed his medical condition at issue in this matter."

¶ 9 Palm filed a motion to compel Holocker's responses. At the hearing on September 20, 2016, Palm's counsel argued that Holocker's abilities to see and drive "are at issue in this case because he drove his vehicle into a pedestrian." Contemnor argued that Holocker's physician-patient privilege protects his private health information, regardless of its relevance, unless he affirmatively places his health at issue. Alternatively, contemnor stipulated that Holocker possessed a valid license when the collision occurred; his medical condition was irrelevant because the Secretary of State legally permitted him to drive. The court granted Palm's motion and ordered Holocker to answer the interrogatories. Over contemnor's objection, the court also entered a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq. (2012)) order that applied to both Palm and Holocker. Palm's counsel sent Dr. Nau and the Secretary of State subpoenas requesting Holocker's medical records pursuant to the HIPAA order.

¶ 10 Despite the court's order, Holocker refused to respond to Palm's interrogatories. Contemnor informed Palm's counsel that he was "simply protecting [his client's] important natural right to privacy." Palm filed a motion requesting sanctions. She asked the court to strike Holocker's denial of liability, enter a default judgment, and award attorney fees.

¶ 11 At the hearing on January 4, 2017, contemnor again argued that Holocker's privilege protects his medical information regardless of its relevance to the case. Alternatively, he argued that fact issues, such as whether Holocker looked in Palm's direction before the collision, precluded any determination as to the relevance of Holocker's vision or other medical conditions. Palm again argued that Holocker's health and vision were relevant to the case. Her counsel cited Marshall County public records showing Holocker had "seven or eight" prior collisions and received "a dozen traffic citations * * * in the last 20 years."

¶ 12 The court found that Palm had "legitimate reasonable cause to believe that there could be some sight problems here that could have been related to this accident, and [she's] got a right to look for that." The court held Holocker's counsel in civil contempt. The contempt order imposed a $5–per-day fine until contemnor purged his contempt by submitting Holocker's interrogatory responses to Palm's counsel. This appeal ensued.

¶ 13 ANALYSIS

¶ 14 Contemnor appeals the court's civil contempt order pursuant Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(5) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). Rule 304(b)(5) makes contempt orders appealable without a special finding. Although discovery orders are not ordinarily appealable, litigants may test the correctness of a discovery order through contempt proceedings. Norskog v. Pfiel , 197 Ill. 2d 60, 69, 257 Ill.Dec. 899, 755 N.E.2d 1 (2001). In such cases, "[r]eview of the contempt finding necessarily requires review of the order upon which it is based." Id. (citing Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. , 144 Ill. 2d 178, 189, 161 Ill.Dec. 774, 579 N.E.2d 322 (1991) ).

¶ 15 The discovery and contempt orders at issue address the two interrogatories to which Holocker objected. However, neither party's brief addressed whether the interrogatories seek privileged information. Both parties briefed and argued whether the privilege applies at all in this case, not whether the privilege specifically applies to the two interrogatories. Palm intended to obtain Holocker's medical records from medical providers he disclosed in his responses. If the privilege applies, the interrogatories are pointless; Palm may not obtain Holocker's medical records regardless of who treated him or when he received treatment.

¶ 16 We are dutifully cognizant of our supreme court's expectation that appellate courts observe judicial restraint. See People v. White , 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 153, 353 Ill.Dec. 517, 956 N.E.2d 379. However, if we limit our review to the two interrogatories in this case, our decision would resolve nothing. The issues would not change, and the parties would simply raise the same arguments in a second appeal after contemnor sought a protective order or other injunctive relief to protect Holocker's medical records from Palm's subpoenas (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016); Skolnick v. Altheimer & Gray , 191 Ill. 2d 214, 246 Ill.Dec. 324, 730 N.E.2d 4 (2000) ; Bush v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria , 351 Ill. App. 3d 588, 286 Ill.Dec. 485, 814 N.E.2d 135 (2004) ). In the interest of efficiently administering justice, we address the ultimate dispute raised in the parties' briefs. We hold that under section 8–802(4), defendants maintain their physician-patient privilege until they waive it by affirmatively placing their health at issue.

¶ 17 I. Discovery Order

¶ 18 The parties dispute whether the statutory physician-patient privilege ( 735 ILCS 5/8–802 (West 2016) ) applies to this case. Normally, discovery orders are not reversed absent a manifest abuse of discretion; however, "the applicability of a statutory evidentiary privilege, and any exceptions thereto, are matters of law subject to de novo review." Reda v. Advocate Health Care , 199 Ill. 2d 47, 54, 262 Ill.Dec. 394, 765 N.E.2d 1002 (2002). Contemnor waived Holocker's HIPAA objection by failing to address the issue in his brief. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016).

¶ 19 The physician-patient privilege protects patients' medical records from disclosure without their consent. 735 ILCS 5/8–802 (West 2016). Patients' medical records contain "information regarding diagnosis, examinations, tests, or treatment rendered." Pritchard v. SwedishAmerican Hospital , 191 Ill. App. 3d 388, 403, 138 Ill.Dec. 658, 547 N.E.2d 1279 (1989). Medical care providers acquire and record this information because it is necessary to enable the provider to serve or treat the patient. See id. at 404, 138 Ill.Dec. 658, 547 N.E.2d 1279. Thus, patients' medical records are privileged unless a statutory exception applies. See 735 ILCS 5/8–802 (West 2016).

¶ 20 The privilege is subject to 14 enumerated exceptions. The exception at issue, section 8802(4), states the privilege is...