Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00096/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00096-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Vernie Shoop, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

United States of America, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-0096-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 In both the case management conference on May 1, 2013, and the joint case 

management report, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked that defense counsel be precluded from all 

ex parte communications with the physicians currently treating Plaintiff Vernie Shoop. 

The Court took the matter under advisement. For the reasons that follow, the Court 

concludes that defense counsel is not barred from engaging in ex parte communications 

with Plaintiff Vernie Shoop’s treating physicians who are employed by Defendant United 

States. 

 A hospital has a right to information gathered by employees acting in the scope of 

their employment. Phoenix Children's Hosp., Inc. v. Grant, 265 P.3d 417 (Ariz. Ct. App. 

2011). In Grant, the plaintiffs alleged negligence against a nurse, but continued receiving 

medical treatment from other employees of the same hospital. Id. The court allowed 

defense counsel access to the current treating practitioners, concluding that “a hospital's 

right to discuss a plaintiff/patient with its own employees exists because the employment 

relationship exists.... We see no reason why the filing of a lawsuit expands the 

physician-patient privilege to bar communications that are otherwise allowed.” Id. at 

Case 2:13-cv-00096-DGC Document 30 Filed 06/06/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

421. While Grant concerned a private employer, the fundamental principle remains. The 

physicians in this case act as agents for their employer, the United States, and information 

acquired in the scope of their employment is imputed to the United States under Arizona 

law and may be accessed by the United States and its counsel during litigation. Id. As 

Grant makes clear, however, the information accessed through ex parte communications 

must be relevant to the defense of this case. Id. at 422. 

 Plaintiffs’ counsel has cited Bain v. Superior Court, 714 P.2d 824 (Ariz. 1986), in 

support of the argument that ex parte communications should be banned. In Bain, 

defendants attempted to access records related to previous marital counseling while 

litigating a claim related to back surgery, and the court’s denial of their attempt pertained 

mostly to the irrelevancy of the counseling records. Unlike Bain, no one in this case 

argues that the information to be provided by the treating physicians is irrelevant. In fact, 

the diagnosis given by the current treating doctors, and information they may have about 

damages, are highly relevant. Thus, Bain’s decision to limit the subject matter of 

communication with treating practitioners is easily distinguishable on the facts and is not 

persuasive here.1

 Dated this 6th day of June, 2013. 

 

1

 The Court bases this decision on Arizona law because both parties have cited 

Arizona cases in support of their arguments. 

Case 2:13-cv-00096-DGC Document 30 Filed 06/06/13 Page 2 of 2