privilege who wrote where in the patient's physical or mental condition is an issue the trial court in this case found the defendant's physical condition was an issue what happened in this case was that if it drove through a stop condition is an issue the proof of to some sort of issue for a person with a disability to have their condition in the answer to that is if it is an issue for duty it's going to have to be revealed because that's the law but let us take a step back why is it an issue later criminal records president your argument that's par for us but isn't it true that none of the later cases said that they were brigade emus earlier cases and isn't it also true that the civil cases the number frankly there's a lot if we're going to rewrite the statute was the court goes the first place it starts to say that the legislature use was vague because i said or the language of the language is frankly a great example of the legislation used in the future about how to dial something down maybe easy to understand because if it were an issue where the phrase an issue can be understood by anyone we know what that means we know the dictionary definition of that word means frankly it's better than using the word true because the statute says one the patient has to be a party into the condition if you're old there are numerous cases who have relevant did was when they tried to determine what an issue is to look if you can hear my question specifically what issues are we talking about that you told me before the issue was the nature of the duty and you're telling me that the issue is causation the i'm sorry i'm sorry just like i confused with fact is his vision and the reason is because his vision affects his ability to drive but he has a duty to drive safely and if he is unable to drive safely his breeches do because a reasonable person in the same he was looking the other way but when it comes to well i didn't see her or i could see her in this case it would be a biggish and she certainly could come up with issues were causation issues if someone questions but before you get started in your argument is this isn't true well let me ask it this way how is the appellate court's opinion not only an advisory opinion that the statute begins no physician or surgeon shall be permitted to disclose any information he or she may have acquired in a pending any patient but the specific order before the court does not involve a physician or surgeon being asked to disclose your medical providers we will send them a subpoena for information that we said his relevant privilege we will move to watch the subpoena and we still haven't gotten to a doctor  isn't in the records information showing that the defendants this isn't actually is an issue and the plaintiff was told by someone i don't know who knows he is actually legally blind he's had numerous accidents and citations over the years and his potentially history doctors have told him he should be driving well here's the usenet an issue well it is an issue in one sense just like how badly played for is an prove if physical condition and the judge went into that and the boxes decision is a matter of fact now the greatest cities in the world slipped my mind when i wonder pressure but the issue is and since you're mentioning other statutes the new mexico statute says for example if a patient relies on a physical mental or emotional condition as part of the claim or defense no privilege  confidential communications made relevant to that condition but that's not what our station says her statement says it is so out of how do we deal with we deal with it just the way cram up just wa while for the plaintiff to get every medical record and they're searching that the defendant has made saying the my medical condition is an issue in this case and that's restrict it while it is going good answers your question from restrictive for what oh why would the defendant put his or her medical condition issue if they thought that medical condition and not a is what about the fact you can complain of still get with the good and it turned over to the secretary of state in order to obtain his driver's license well that's an interesting thing i thought of the provision of the secretary of state says that's privilege your health is a terrible we're very reasonable man and you can't will if you don't have any special consideration and i know you disagree with those from that answer but there is the case out of minnesota let me tell you what they said about this tell me whether wrong which is the purpose of the physician patient privilege is to protect confidential information acquired by a physician while attending a patient for the purpose for the purpose of the defendant's disclosure of the purpose of public safety was to obtain driving or license in privileges and not to obtain medical treatment the defendant has not been paying the confidentiality of his medical records and he has communicated better one for mission outside of the context the patient seeking treatment this in the terms of the context of this case and following up on justice thomas we're not at the doorstep of the doctor's office but the subpoena this to school rises in the context of a discovery objection and there was a hearing i phrase we have an issue here as to vision but not to allow a fishing expedition so isn't that really narrowed the question is answered the question not turn over records answer the question about medical  the appeal heard we got the records of the appeal heard so they're not in the courts record i know the answer that you all want to know i probably can't say it to you because it's not of the record and the order that we were not to do anything with the records but we know the answer even though he didn't tell us who all those doctors were you know the answer through as just pointed out there are people in the community who know this lady this is not chicago late it is a the privilege exists we were ordered to destroy the rock is that it was appeal from the public was sitting so it's not moot because of that ish that we're we can't use that even though we know the answer even though we know what they are even though we know it would circumstances which comes back to the issue of the beginning of an issue which under the same circumstances that's been the law included that in this country for hundreds of years it's under the same circumstances so for all person he had a duty to drive as a normal person under the same circumstances that he had at that period you have a case says that that in terms of the duty analysis that a person has a duty depending on their physical condition i do blood and then there's the chicago railroad cases both of those say it's a person of the circumstances one of the cases we did talk about that hasn't brought up is this court's decision to call which was one of that was unconstitutional was because the statute said nothing about relevance and this court said it is reasonable to turn over medical records that are relevant to the condition issue that the constitution doesn't protect you from all scuppering to protect you from irrelevant skill and if i were to say i said before if you would to a dermatologist i don't care if you care that's a privilege that has no relevance but if he goes to three different high doctors and tries to convince one of them to clear him to drive we care we care because that his duty is not to drive two o free to change its mind and cases of this court as a rule so it's certainly possible they just change their mind to along with all of the other cases that have already been  all of the other exceptions for cases that have all felt the same thing to examine these claims as the law applies to the factual situation and it's going to be different every time there's where this court faces difficult issues sometimes in applying very different sets of facts or even set of facts of minor differences so every