Case Name: Terri DAVIS, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1999-01-15
Citations: 727 So. 2d 647
Docket Number: No. 98-C-2160
Parties: Terri DAVIS, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION.
Judges: Court composed of Chief Judge DENIS A. BARRY, Judge STEVEN R. PLOTKIN, Judge MIRIAM G. WALTZER, Judge MOON LANDRIEU, Judge JAMES F. McKAY, III.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 727
Pages: 647–655

Head Matter:
Terri DAVIS, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION.
No. 98-C-2160
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 15, 1999.
Darleen M. Jacobs, St. New Orleans, and J. Robert Ates, Destrahan, and Wendell H. Gauthier, Gauthier, Downing, Labarre, Beiser & Dean, Metairie, and Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Linda S. Harang, Murray Law Firm, New Orleans, and Robert G. Harvey, Harvey, Jacobson & Corrington, New Orleans, and Terrill W. Boykin, Stephen J. Moore, Rodney, Bordenave, Boykin, Ben-nette & Boyle, New Orleans, Attorneys for Relator.
Henri Wolbrette, III, Kathleen A. Manning, McGlinchey Stafford Lang, New Orleans, Attorneys for Respondent.
Court composed of Chief Judge DENIS A. BARRY, Judge STEVEN R. PLOTKIN, Judge MIRIAM G. WALTZER, Judge MOON LANDRIEU, Judge JAMES F. McKAY, III.

Opinion:
h LANDRIEU, Judge.
This application for supervisory writs presents an issue relative to pretrial discovery of the underlying basis of an expert witness's opinion. Plaintiffs seek supervisory review of a trial court judgment compelling the production of medical records concerning patients whose treatment underlies the report presented by the plaintiffs' expert witness. We grant plaintiffs' application for supervisory writs and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
FACTS
The underlying suit is a products liability case brought by women allegedly injured by using the Norplant contraception system. The plaintiffs seek to maintain the litigation as a class action. In preparation for the certification and hearing in compliance with a case management order, the plaintiffs and the defendant, American Home Products Corporation, exchanged expert reports in January of 1998. The plaintiffs submitted a report from Dr. Andrew Campbell, the medical director of the Center for Immune, Environmental and Toxic Disorders, ^located in Houston, Texas. In the report, Dr. Campbell stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
At our Center, we have evaluated young women of all ages, from late teens to mid-thirties, with stroke, blindness, paraplegia, hemiplegia, medically serious and dangerous weight gain, pregnancy, severe scarring of the upper arm, all due to Norplant
It is therefore my opinion, based upon these facts, that Norplant is unreasonably dangerous to women in design, construction, composition, drug delivery system and provides inadequate warnings.
My opinions stated above are based on the information available to me at this time. I reserve the right to amend my opinions, as more information becomes available.
Upon receipt of Dr. Campbell's report, American Home requested copies of all of Dr. Campbell's medical records on Norplant patients. Because none of Dr. Campbell's patients were members of the putative class and because Dr. Campbell's report was not based upon review of any specific records, the plaintiffs objected to American Home's request.
In its Motion to Compel, American Home based its right to review the records of Dr. Campbell's patients upon the explicit language of the case management order, and the reasoning and holding of an unpublished opinion improperly cited to this court. American Home relies upon the following language in the case management order:
Each expert report shall be signed by the expert witness, shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed at the hearing, including the bases and reasons for the opinions, the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions.-
American Home argues that Dr. Campbell's expert opinion was based partly on the experience of the women seen at the Center. Thus, these women's experiences constituted both "the bases and reasons for [the expert's] opinions" and "the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the bopinions." Inclusion by Dr. Campbell- of information concerning the complaints of women seen at the clinic to reach the ultimate conclusion that Norplant is unreasonably dangerous, according to American Home, requires the plaintiffs to provide medical information concerning these women to allow for effective cross-examination of Dr. Campbell. The special master agreed with American Home and ordered both sides to produce their Norplant patient records with all personal, identifying patient information redacted.
By Acts 1995, No. 1250, the legislature established a comprehensive scheme governing the issuance of orders or subpoenas duces tecum for the production of medical records and matters relating to the health care provider-patient privilege, through the amendments of La. Civ. Code Proc. art. 1469.1, La.Rev.Stat. 13:3715.1 and La.Code Evid. art. 510. •
La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 1469.1, as amended and rewritten by Acts 1995, No.' 1250, § 1, states:
Ño order, subpoena, or subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of obtaining or compelling the production or inspection of medical, hospital, or other records relating to a person's medical treatment, history, or condition, including a subpoena or order issued under Article 1463 and including a subpoena compelling the attendance of the custodian of records or Other employee of the health care provider, either by name, title, or position, in connection with such production, shall be granted or issued except as provided in R.S. 13:3715.1
La.Rev.Stat. 13:3715.1(B), as amended by Acts 1995, No. 1250, § 2, provides in pertinent part:
B. The exclusive method by which medical, hospital, or other records relating to a person's medical treatment, history, or condition may be obtained or disclosed by a health care provider, shall be pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 40:1299.96 or Code of Evidence Article 510, or a lawful subpoena or court order obtained in the following manner:

b(2) Any attorney requesting medical records of a patient, who is not a party to the litigation in which the records are being sought may obtain the records by written authorization of the patient whose records are being sought or if no such authorization is given, by court order, as provided in Paragraph (5) hereof.
*
(5) A court shall issue an order for the production and disclosure of a patient's records regardless of whether the patient is a party to the litigation, only: after a contradictory hearing with the patient, or, if represented, with his counsel of record, or, if deceased, with those persons identified in Paragraph (3) hereof, and after a finding by the court that the release of the requested information is proper; or with consent of the patient.
The health care provider-patient privilege is governed by La.Code Evid. art. 510, which provides in relevant part:
B. (1) General rule of privilege in civil proceedings. In a non-criminal proceeding, a patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another person from disclosing a confidential communication made for the purpose of advice, diagnosis or treatment of his health condition between or among himself or his representative, his health care provider, or their representatives.
Under La.Code Evid. art. 510, and, by reference, La.Rev.Stat. 13:3734(A), Dr. Campbell and the Center for Immune, Environmental and Toxic Disorders are health care providers. Pursuant to La.Code Evid. art. 510(B)(1), a patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose or prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication between or among a patient or his representative, his health care provider or their representative. La.Code Evid. art. 510(D) provides that the patient can claim the privilege. Additionally, the patient's physician or health care provider at the time the communication was made is presumed to have authority to claim the privilege on behalf of the patient. La.Code Evid. art. 510(B)(2) provides fefor exceptions to the general rule of privilege, none of which applies to the facts of the instant case.
In this case, none of the non-party patients gave written authorizations. Further, the mandatory procedure set out in La. R.S. 13:3715.1(B)(5) was not followed. There was no contradictory hearing with the non-party patients, their counsel, any of their survivors, or the executors or administrators of their estates.
American Home argues that the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship would neither be subverted nor impinged upon by the court's order because the trial court directed that all patient identifying information be redacted prior to production of the records. According to the defendant, after redaction, the records would become anonymous case histories just as those described in medical journals or discussed in medical school classrooms. Disclosure of these anonymous records, according to the defendant, could not reasonably be viewed as chilling to the doctor-patient relationship.
While this argument appears convincing, there is no authority for the proposition that medical records become exempt from the mandatory requirements of La.Code Civ. Proe. art. 1469.1 and La.Rev.Stat. 13:3715.1 by the redaction or removal of "patient information."
Furthermore, La.Code Civ. Proc. arts. 1422-1425 permit discovery "regarding any matter not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter of the action." Hodges v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 433 So.2d 125, 129 (La.1983). The information being sought is privileged and/or confidential. Absent the existence of a statutory exception, permission from the non-party patients, or a contradictory hearing, the medical records of non-party patients are not discoverable in Louisiana.
^Accordingly, for the above reasons, plaintiffs' application for supervisory writs is granted and the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
WRIT APPLICATION GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED.
PLOTKIN, J., dissents with written reasons.