I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO
CARONDELE T HE ALT H NETWORK dba ST
. J O SE PH ’ S H O SPITA L , an A r i zona c orpor at i on, P eti ti o n er,

v. H O N
. M I C H A E L M I L L E R , J udge of the S u p e rio r C o u rt o f

th e S tate o f

A riz o n a , in and fort he C ount yof Pi m a, R e sp o n d e n t,

and M A R Y K
. A T T E B E R R Y , i ndi vi dual l y , as t h e s u r v i v i n g wi f

e o f DU DLEY E. A T T E B E R R Y , d e c e a se d , an d o n b e h a lf o f J OEL T. ATTEBER RY , DA NI EL L. A TTE BE RR Y , N A TH A N A EL S. ATTEBER RY , a n d TI M OTH Y L. A T T E B E R R Y , t he s ur vi vi ng chi l dr en of D U D L E Y E
. A T T E B E R R Y , dece as ed, and al l ot hers t atut or ybenef i ci ar i es of D U D L E Y E
. A T T E B E R R Y , dece as ed; KE UN HYU K NO a n d E UN J OO NO, h u s b a n d a n d wi f

e ; T RA VM E D US A, I N C
. , a N or t h C ar ol i na corpor at i on; and I NP AT I E NT M E DI CA L C O N SU L T A N T S, P. L
. L
. C
. , an A r i zona p r o f e s s i o n a l l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y c o m p a n y,

R e a l P a rties in In ter e st. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- SA 2009- 0019

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N JUN 12 2009



### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2 S P E CI AL AC T I ON P RO CE E DI NG Pi m a C ount yC aus e N o. C 20080195 J UR I SDI CTI ON AC CEPTED; RELI EF DENI ED
M e s c h , Cl a r k & Ro t h s c h i l d , P
. C. B yR i char d D avi s , Scot tH
. G an, and G aryJ
. C ohen
L aw O ffi ce of

C ar t erM or ey B yG r egoryG
. W as l ey T ucs on A t t or ney s forPet i t i oner

T ucs on A tto rn e y s f

o r R e a l P a rtyin Interes t M aryK
. A tt eb erry
V Á S Q U E Z , J udge. ¶1 I n t hi s s peci al act i on, pet i t i onerC ar ondel etH eal t h N etw o rk chal l enges t he
r es pondentj udge’ s or der r equi r i ng C ar ondel et t o di s cl os e the name, addr es s , and t el ephone
n u m b e ro f a h o s p i t a l p a t i e n t w h o , w h i l e s h a r i n g a r o o m w i t h f e l l o w p a t i e n tD u d l e y A t t e b e r r y,
w i t nes s ed eve nt s t hatpr ece ded D udl ey ’ s d eat h. C ar ondel etcl ai m s t he phy s i ci an- pat i ent p r i v i l e g e b a r s d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e w i t n e s s ’ s i d e n t i t y. ¶2 “W hen a tr i al cour tor der s di s cl os ur es t hata partyorw i t nes s bel i eves t o be p ro tec ted b ya p riv ileg e , ap p e a l p ro v id e s n o re m e d y . S p e c ial ac tio n is th e p ro p e r m e a n s to
s eek r el i ef. ” C hu rch of Jesus C hrist of Latt er- D ay S aint s v. Su peri or C ou rt , 159 A r i z. 24, 2 5 -2 6 , 7 6 4 P .2 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 0 -6 1 (A p p . 1 9 8 8 ); s ee al s o A ri z. R
. P
. S pec. A ct i on s 1(a)
. B ecause t he i s s ue pr es ent ed i s “of s t at ew i de i m por t ance [and] .
. . l i kel yt o ar i s e aga i n, ” w e ac cept3

ju ri s d ic tio n o f th is s p e c ia l a c tio n . S ta te ex re l. R o m ley v . M a rtin , 203 A r i z. 46, ¶ 4, 49 P. 3d 1 1 4 2 , 1 1 4 3 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ), a ff ’d , 2 05 A r i z. 279, 69 P. 3d 1000 ( 2003)
. W e r evi ew t he
re s p o n d e n t ju d g e ’s d is c lo s u re o rd e r f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See A r i z. R
. P. Spec. A ct i ons 3 (c). Fac t s and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound ¶3 R eal par t y i n i nt er es t M ary A t t eberr y i s D udl ey ’ s w i dow
. M ary br ou g h t t he under l y i ng act i on form edi cal m al pr act i ce a nd w r ongful death agai ns tC ar ondel etand other i ndi vi dual and corpor at e def endant s . She al l eges t hei rnegl igence i n fai l i ng t o pr ot ectand pr oper l y car e forD udl eyw hi l e he w as a pat i entatSt
. J os eph’ s H os pi t al r es ul t ed i n t he i nj ur i es and s ubs equentcompl i cat i ons t hatl ed t o hi s death on M ay28, 2007. ¶4 I n t he ea r l ym or ni ng hour s of M ay 16, D udl ey s us t ai ned a fr actur ed hi p aft er fal l i ng i n hi s hos pi t al r oom . L at er thatm or ni ng, hi s hos pi t al r oom m at e t ol d M aryt hat D u d ley h ad fa ll en tw ice i n the n igh t and that, ea ch ti m e, th e ro o m m ate h ad n o ti fied D u d ley ’s
n u rse . A lth o u g h M a ryth u s s p o k e d ire c tlyw ith th e ro o m m a te o n M a y 1 6 , sh e d id n o t o b tain t he man’ s name oranycont acti nfor m at i on. ¶5 M aryas s er t s t he hos pi t al r ecor ds pr oduced i n di s cov ery di d notm ent i on t he fi r s tfal l orei t herof the r oom m at e’ s r epor t s t o D udl ey ’ s nur s e. M aryt hus s ubm i t t ed a
w r i t t en i nt err ogat or y as ki ng C ar ondel et for “the name, addr es s and t el ephone numberof the pat i en t w ho s har ed the hos pi t al r oom w i t h D udl eyE
. A t t eberr yon t he eve ni ng of M ay15, 2 0 0 7 , an d the e arlym o rnin g h o u rs of M ay1 6 , 2 0 0 7
. ” C lai m ing the id en ti tyo f D u d ley ’sS e c tio n 1 2 -2 2 3 5 , en tit led “ D o c to r a n d p a tien t,” p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: “I n a c iv il 1 act i on a phy s i ci an ors ur geon s hal l not , w i t houtt he cons entof hi s pat i ent , . . . be exa m i ned as t o an ycom m un i cat i on m ade by his pati ent w i t h r eference t o any ph y si cal or m ental dis ease o r d is o rd e r . . . o r a s to a n ys u c h k n o w le d g e o b ta in e d b yp e rs o n a l e x a m in a tio n o f th e p a tie n t.” S e c tio n 1 2 -2 2 9 2 , e n title d “ C o n f id e n tia lity o f

m e d ic a l r e c o rd s a n d p a ym e n t r e c o rd s ,” pr ovi des i n per t i nentpar t : “A
. U nl es s ot herw i s e pr ovi ded byl aw , al l m edi cal r ecor ds and . . . th e in f

o rm a tio n c o n ta in e d in m e d ic a l r e c o rd s . . . a r e p r i v ile g e d a n d c o n f id e n tia l. A heal t h car e pr ovi der m ay onl y di s cl os e . . . a pat i ent ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds
. . . as author i zed by s t at e orfede r al l aw orw r i t t en author i zat i on s i gned byt he pat i ent. . . . ” E v en befor e the e n a c tm e n t o f § 1 2 -2 2 9 2 in 1 9 9 5 , s ee 1 9 9 5 A riz . S e ss . L a w s, c h . 2 2 5 , § 1 , this c o u rt h a d h e ld h o sp it al reco rds c o n tai n ing inf o rm ati o n that w o u ld b e p ri v il eg ed u n d er § 1 2 -22 3 5 w ere s im ila rl y c o v e re d b y th e p h y s ic ia n -p a tie n t p ri v ile g e . Tucs on Med. C ent erI nc. v. R ow l es , 21 A ri z. A p p . 4 2 4 , 4 2 7 , 5 2 0 P
. 2 d 5 1 8 , 5 2 1 (19 7 4 ). 4 r oom m at e w as pr o t e c t e d b yt he phy s i ci an- pat i entpr i vi l ege, C ar ondel etr efus ed t o pr ovi de the inf o rm ati on, and M arym oved t o compel t he di s covery . T he r es pondentj udge gr ant ed M ary ’ s m ot i on, or der ed C ar ondel etto d i s cl os e the i dent i fy i ng i nfor m at i on unders eal , and di r ect ed couns el nott o r evea l t he pat i ent ’ s name t o any one el s e “w i t houtpr i orperm i s s i on fr om t he C our t or expr es s , w r i t t en perm i s s i on by t he pat i ent . ” T hi s pet i t i on fors peci al act i on fol l ow ed. D i s cus s i on ¶6 T he phy s i ci an- pat i entpr i vi l ege, codi fi ed i n A r i zona a tA
. R
. S. §§ 12- 2235 and 12- 2292, ex i s t s t o fos t era pat i ent ’ s “ful l and fr ank di s cl os ur e of medi cal hi s t or yand

1 sy m p to m s” to h is o r h e r p h y sic ian in o rd e r to f a c ili tate th e b e st p o ss ib le m e d ica l trea tm e n t. Lew i n v. Jack

s on , 10 8 A ri z. 27 , 31 , 4 92 P
. 2d 40 6, 41 0 (197 2). T he p ri vil ege refl ect s a
so c ieta l ju d g m e n t th a t p e o p le s h o u ld f e e l f re e “ to se e k tre a tm e n t u n d e ter re d b yf e a r th a t a5

p ri v ate p h y sical co n d it ion w il l b ec o m e a m att er of p u b li c discu ssion
. ” Jo sep h M
. L iverm o re
e t a l., A r iz ona Law of

E vi dence § 5 0 1
. 1 , at 12 3 (4th ed
. 2 0 0 0 ). ¶7 I n contr as t t o ot her excl us i onary rul es barr i ng t he admi s s i on of ev iden ce d e e m e d “ u n re liab le, lik e ly to b e m isu se d , c o n f u sin g o r tim e c o n su m in g ,” p riv ileg e s te n d to excl ude evi dence t hat“i s oft en r el iable, val uabl e, and r el evantpr oof. ” I d. at120. C ons equent l y , beca us e they“i m pede the trut h- fi ndi ng funct i on of the court s , ” pr i vi l ege
s ta tu te s a re s tr ic tly c o n s tru e d
. C atr one v. Mi l es , 215 A r i z. 446, ¶ 10, 160 P. 3d 1204, 1209 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ), q u o tin g C h u rc h o f J e su s C h ris t o

f L a tter -D a

y Sa in ts , 159 A r i z. at 29, 764 P. 2d at764. ¶8 W h e th e r a n d to w h a t e x te n t a p ri v ile g e e x is ts is a q u e s tio n o f la w . I d. ; see al so L edvi na v. C er as ani , 2 1 3 A riz . 5 6 9 , ¶ 3 , 1 4 6 P .3 d 7 0 , 7 2 (A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); Bla z e k v . S u p e r i or C ou rt , 177 A r i z. 535, 537, 869 P. 2d 509, 511 ( A pp. 1994)
. A s w i t h anyi s s ue of law , our
re v ie w is d e n o v o . See Ledv i na , 213 A r i z. 569, ¶ 3, 146 P. 3d at72. ¶9 A s author i t yfori nvoki n g th e p h y s i c i a n - p a t i e n tp r i v i l e g e h e r e , Ca r o ndel etr el i es pr i n cipal l yon ours upr eme cour t ’ s s t at ementi n Z i eglerv. Su peri or C ou rt , 131 A r i z. 250, 2 5 1 , 6 4 0 P
. 2 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 2 (19 8 2 ) ( Z i eglerI ) , t hatdi s cl os i ng the iden ti ti es of ce r t ai n for m er p a tien ts o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts in th a t ca se w o u ld h a v e v io late d th e p riv ileg e . D e sp ite th e b re a d th
o f th e cou rt ’s l ang uag e, t he scope of i t s actual ho l ding i s narr ow er, t et hered necessaril y to th e f a c ts o f th e c a se b e f

o re it.6

¶10 I n t he under l y i ng act i on i n Zieg l er , t he pl ai nt i ff ha d s ued tw o doct or s for
s ur gi cal l yi m pl ant i ng a pace m akers he di d notneed; s he had a l s o s ued the hos pi t al w her e the d octor s pract i ced f

or fai l i ng t o sup ervi se and c on t rol t he m edical services provided in i ts f a c ility. See Z i eglerv. Su peri or C ou rt , 134 A r i z. 390, 391, 656 P. 2d 1251, 1252 ( A pp. 1982) ( Z iegler II

)
. A c e n t r a l i s s u e i n t h e c a s e wa s wh e t h e r t h e h o s p i t a l k n e w o rs h o u l d h a v e k n o wn t hatt he doct or s had i m pl ant ed unneces s ary pace m aker s i n ot her pat i ent s as w el l , and the tr i al
cou rthad previ ou sl yordered dis cl osure of t he m edical chart s o f t w enty -four such pa t i ents , w ith their n am es an d o ther i d en ti fy ing inf o rm ati o n rem o v e d
. I

d. A ta pr etr i al m edi cal l i abi l i t yr evi ew panel hear i ng i n t he ca s e, expertw i t nes s es for t he pl ai nt i ff ha d “t es t i fi ed that 20 of the 24 medi cal chart s r epr es ent ed medi cal m al pr act i ce byr eas on of unnec es s ary i m pl ant at i on of pac emaker s . ” I d. at391- 92, 656 P. 2d at1252- 53. ¶11 B eca us e t he m edi cal r ecor ds of t hos e nonpar t ypat i ent s i n Zi egl er had al r eady been pr oduced t o couns el w i t h t he pat i ent s ’ names a nd addr es s es excis ed, s ubs equent di s cl os ur e of t hei r i dent i t i es w oul d have pot ent i al l yl i nked ea ch pat i entt o hi s orherr ecor ds and nec es s ar i l yr evea l ed pri vat e i nfor m at i on abouteac h i ndi vi dual ’ s m edi cal condi t i on and t reatm ent. Indeed , and i n con t ras t t o t his case, t hat w as the pu rpose for w hich the p at i ents ’ i dent i t i es w er e s ought

— beca us e thei rme d i c a l c o ndi t i ons and the tr eatm entt heyhad r ece i ved from t he d efen dan t do ct ors con st i tuted r el evan tevidence sup po rt i ng Z i egler ’s cl ai m s agai nst th e h o sp ital.O uri nt erpretati on i s cons i s t entw i t h t he s t atut or yl anguage cr eat i ng t he pr i vi l ege, 2 w h i c h p r e v e n t s q u e s t i o n i n g a p h ys i c i a n i n a c i v i l a c t i o n a b o u t“ a n y com m uni cat i on m ade by h is p a tien t w i th ref

erence to any p hysi cal or m entaldis ease or d isorder
. . . oras t o anys uch k n o w ledg e o b tai n ed b yp erso n al ex am ination o f th e pa ti en t. ” § 1 2 -22 3 5 (em p h asis ad d ed ). S el f-evi den t l y , a pati ent’ s nam e, add res s, and con t acti nf ormat i on are not“com m un i cat i on [s]

. . . w i t h r efe r ence t o anyphy s i cal orm ent al di s eas e ordi s or der
. ” I d. 7 ¶12 D es pi t e the l i t er al l anguage of Z i eglerI, w e do notr ead t he cas e t o hol d t hat t he phy s i ci an- pat i entpr i vi l ege c r eat es a bl anket p roh ibit i on agai ns tt he di s cl os ur e of a pat i ent ’ s i dent i t y , as C ar ondel et as s er t s , beca us e t hat w as not t he l egal i s s ue pre s ent ed byt he fac t s befor e the court . A nd, even w hi l e br oadl y decl ar i ng t he pat i ent s ’ i dent i t i es pr ot ect ed i n t hatcas e, t he courts i m ul t aneous l yacknow l edged the purpos e of the phy s i ci an- pat i ent pr i vi l ege a nd t he s or tof i nfor m at ion the pri vi l ege i s i nt ended t o pr ot ect : “The for m er p a tien ts a re e n tit led to b e le f t to th e ir p riv a c yse c u re in th e b e lief th a t theircon

f i den ces, tr eatm ent

, and r ecor ds ar e prot ect ed fr om di s cl os ur e. ” Zi egl er , 131 A r i z. at251, 640 P. 2d at 18 2 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶13 T hus , t he ac tual h o lding of Z i eglerI i s narr ow ert han s om e of i t s l anguage
m ig h t s u g g e s t, if

e x c e rp te d a n d re a d o u t o f c o n te x t. Z i eglerI

s t ands onl y fort he pr opos i t i on th a t th e p h y sic ian -p a tien t p riv ileg e p ro tec ts a p a tien t’s id e n tityw h e n its re v e latio n w o u ld in e v itab lye x p o s e in f

o rm a tio n a b o u t th e p a tien t’s m e d ica l h isto ry , co n d iti o n , o r tre a tm e n t,
an d p o tentia lly r e v ea l i n fo rm ati o n the p ati en t had d ivu lged in co n fid en ce . W e the ref o re 2

r ej ectC ar ondel et ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of Z i eglerI and dec l i ne t o appl yt he court ’ s l i t er al l anguage t o t he dec i dedl ydi ffe r entfac t s pr es ent ed her e.8

¶14 O uri nt erpretati o n of Z i eglerI i s bot h i nfor m ed and butt r es s ed byl at er devel opm ent s i n the ca s e. I n Zi eg ler II, a s ucce s s i ve s peci al act i on fol l ow i ng t he r emand
or der ed i n Z i eglerI, t his cou rt rul ed the pl ai nti ff w as ent i t l ed to r eview and po t enti al l yuse
a s e v id e n c e th e c h a rts o f tw e n ty -f o u r f o rm e r p a tien ts. T h e re , w e h e ld th a t su c h c h a rts c o u ld be u sed t o sup po rther cl ai m of negli gen t supervi si on by t he hospit al , provided the pat i ents ’ id e n titie s a n d p ri v a c yw e re p ro te c te d
. See Zi egl er , 134 A r i z. at393, 395, 656 P. 2d at1254, 1 2 5 6 . In th e p ro c e ss , w e d isc u ss e d th e c o m p e tin g in ter e sts a t sta k e a n d w e ig h e d th e p u b lic i nt er es ti n hos pi t als adequa t el ys upervi s i ng m ember s of thei rm edi cal s t aff s agai ns tt he pr i vacyi nt er es t s of i ndi vi dual pat i ent s w ho w er e notpar t i es t o t he l i t i gat i on:

[M ] edi cal r ecor ds of ot her pat i ent s w ho m i ght h av e had unnece s s arypace m akeri m pl ant at i ons ar e r el evantt o t he not i ce i s su e. I ti s t hus r eadi l yappar entt hata bl anketpr ohi bi t i on agai ns texami nat i on and use agai ns tt he hos pi t al of s uch r ecor ds w o u ld re su lt i n a n in

ju stic e . W e b e liev e th a t th e o r d e r o f th is cour t , s etfor t h above, adequa t el ys afe guar ds t he priva cyof for m erpat i ent s notpar t i es t o t hi s l i t i gat i on and p res erves t he sp ir it o f th e p h y sic ian -p a tien t p riv ileg e . A t th e sa m e tim e it fu rth ers the p u b li c i n terest b y insu ri n g that h o sp it als w il l m o re s crupul ous l ys upervi s e the m ember s of t hei r m edi cal s t aff s and pr eventexpos ur e of f

utur e pat ients t o m edi cal i ncompet ence . W e ca nnot s ee how any pat i ent w oul d be i nhi bi t ed i n confi di ng i n hi s doct orw hen there is n o r i s k of hum i l i at i on and e m b a r r a s s m e n t , a n d n o i n v a s i o n o f t h e p a t i e n t ’ s p r i v a c y. I d. at394, 656 P. 2d at1255. ¶15 I n Z iegler II, w e al s o ci t ed and di s cus s ed ca s es f r om ot herj ur i s di ct i ons t hathad add res sed si m i l ar i ssues. O ne of tw o fr om w hich w e qu oted w i t h ap proval w as R udni ck v

. Su peri or C ou rt , 523 P. 2d 643 ( C al
. 1974)
. T her e, t he C al i forni a Supr eme C our tdi s cus s edW e ar e i ncl i ned t o agr ee w i t h M aryt hatt he tw enty - s i x- y earcoexi s t ence of Z i eglerI 3 and Z iegler II

in o u r ju risp ru d e n c e su p p o rts th e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e yd o n o t co n f lict. 9 t he cr i t er i a t he t r i al cour ts houl d us e i n det erm i ni ng on r emand w hethert he def endantdrug
m anufa ctur er s , w ho had r ece i ved cert ai n confi dent i al adver s e- drug- r eac t i on r eport s from phy s i ci ans , coul d i nvoke the phy s i ci an- pat i entpr i vi l ege on be hal f of the pat i ent s i n r efus i ng t o p roduce t he p hy si ci ans’ r epo rt s of t heir pati ents ’ adv ers e react i on s t o the m anu facturer s’ p rod u ct. 5 2 3 P
. 2 d at 65 1
. A n ti cipa ti n g a qu esti o n itfo resa w arisi n g u p o n rem an d , the c o u rt
o f f e re d th is “ g u id a n c e ” to th e trial c o u rt:

“The w hol e purpos e of the pr i vil eg e is t o pr ecl ude the h u m ili a tio n o f

th e p a tien t th a t m ig h t f o llo w d isc lo su re o f

h is ai l m ent s . ” C ity & C o u n ty o f S .F. v . S u

p e r io r C o u rt ( 1951) 37 C al
. 2d 227, 232, 231 P. 2d 26, 28. T her efor e i f the di s cl os ur e of t he pat i ent ’ s name r evea l s not hi ng of anycomm uni cat i on co n ce rnin g the p ati en t’ s ail m en ts, d iscl o su re o f th e p ati en t’ s name does not vi ol at e t he pri vi l ege. I f, how ever , di s cl os ur e of the pa ti en t’ s n am e i n ev it ab ly in th e co n text o f suc h d iscl o su re r evea l s t he confi dent i al i nfor m at i on, namel yt he ai l m ent s , t hen s uch di s cl os ur e vi ol at es t he pr i vi l ege. C onver s el yi f the di s cl os ur e r evea l s t he ai l me n t s butnott he pat i ent ’ s i dent i t y , t hen s uch di s cl os ur e w oul d appea rnott o vi ol at e the pr i vi l ege. 523 P. 2d 643, 650 n. 13 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. O urrul i ng i n Z iegler II r efl ect ed ouragr eement
w i t h t he C al i forni a court ’ s anal y s i s i n R udni ck , and the s upr eme cour tdeni ed r evi ew of our deci s i on. 3 ¶16 I n contr as tt o t he fa ct s i n Zi egler , t he part i es her e ar e no t inter es t ed i n t he confi dent i al cont ent s of the unnamed pat i ent ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds
. I ns t ead, beca us e he w as an ey ew i t nes s t o event s t hathappene d t o occuri n a hos pi t al r oom , M arys eeks t o di s coverw hat10

i nfor m at i on he ca n pr ovi de aboutw hathe w i t nes s ed. A tor al ar gum ent , C ar ondel etar gued t hatdi s cl os i ng t he w i t nes s ’ s i dent i t yw oul d be t ant amou n tt o r e v e a l i n g p r i v i l e g e d i n f or m at i on
a b o u t h is m e d ica l co n d iti o n a n d tre a tm e n t b e c a u se th e in e v itab le in q u iryin to h is a b ili tyto per cei ve and r eca l l event s w oul d nece s s ar i l yr ai s e ques t i ons abouthi s phy s i cal orm ent al condi t i on and w hatm edi cat i ons he mayhave t aken. ¶17 I n t hi s r es pect , how ever , t he pat i ent - as - w i t nes s i s no di ffe r ent l ys i tuat ed than anyo ther ey ew i t nes s t o event s t hatl at erbecome the s ubj ectof l i t i gat i on. Shoul d he ul t i m at el yt es t i fy , t he part i es w oul d be ent i t l ed t o i nqui r e i nt o anyfac t or s orcondi t i ons t hat
c o u ld h a v e a f

f e c ted th e w itn e ss ’s s e n so ryp e rc e p tio n s a t th e tim e o r h is s u b se q u e n t ab ili ty t o r eca l l w hathe obs erved. T o t he ext ents uch an i nqui r ym i ghtdel ve i nt o pr i vat e, s ens i t i ve,
orpr i vi l eged i nfor m at i on t hatt he w i t nes s do es n otw antr evea l ed, w e w oul d t rus tt he tr i al
c o u rt to f

a sh io n su c h p ro tec ti o n s a s it d e e m s a p p ro p ria te u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th is
s peci fi c ca s e. ¶18 I n ourvi ew , r equi r i ng C ar ondel et t o di s cl os e t he i dent i t yof thi s w i t nes s , under t he r es t r i ct i ve condi t i ons t he r es pondentj udge has i m pos ed, does not run afoul of Z i eglerI
norvi ol at e the pr ot ect i ons t he phy s i ci an- pat i entpr i vi l ege a ffor ds forconfi dent i al m edi cal
comm uni cat i ons . N ordoes i tt hw ar tt he purpos es behi nd t he pr i vi l ege. W e s i m pl ydo not fi nd pl aus i bl e C ar ondel et ’ s as s er t i on at or al ar gum ent t hat our hol di ng t odayw i l l di s cour age p e r s o n s f

ro m se e k in g n e c e ss a rym e d ica l ca re , fr o m v isitin g d o c to rs o r b e in g a d m itt e d to h o sp itals, o r f

ro m d iv u lg in g p e rso n a l in f o rm a tio n n e c e ss a ryto re c e iv e a p p ro p ria te c a re in11

t hos e s et t i ngs . A s w e obs erved i n H ospital C orpo rat i on of A m eri ca v. Su peri or C ou rt , 157 A r i z. 210, 212, 755 P. 2d 1198, 1200 ( A pp. 1988) , s t atut or y pr i vi l eges ar e s t r i ct l ycons t rued b e c a u s e th e y “ c o n tr a v e n e th e p ri n c ip le th a t th e p u b lic h a s a ri g h t to e v e ry p e rs o n ’s e v id e n c e .” T he r es pondentj udge’ s or ders t r i kes an appr opr i at e bal ance betw een M ary ’s right t o t he
e v id e n c e D u d ley’s ro o m m a te m a y h a v e , w h ile p ro tec tin g h is p riv a c ya n d th e c o n f id e n tiality of hi s per s onal m edi cal i nfor m at i on t o t he ful l es text entpos s i bl e. ¶19 A l t hough w e ac ceptj ur i s di ct i on of thi s s peci al act i on, w e fi nd no abus e of the
re s p o n d e n t ju d g e ’s d is c re tio n , s ee A r i z. R
. P. Spec. A ct i ons 3, and ther efor e denyr el i ef.

____________________________________ G A R Y E L
. V Á SQ U E Z , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

____________________________________ PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

____________________________________ J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge