Opinion ID: 2582260
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Physician-Patient Privilege Applies to a Criminal Investigation under the Subpoena Powers Act

Text: ¶ 10 In concluding that the physician-patient privilege does not apply at the investigation stage of this proceeding, the district court effectively concluded that the privilege does not apply during a criminal investigation under the Subpoena Powers Act. We disagree. The physician-patient privilege was not recognized at common law but has been adopted in Utah, first by statute and subsequently by rule. See State v. Anderson, 972 P.2d 86, 88 (Utah Ct.App. 1998). The purpose of the privilege is to promote full disclosure within a physician-patient relationship and thereby facilitate more effective treatment. See Anderson, 972 P.2d at 89; Brillantes v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.App.4th 323, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 778 (Ct. App.1996). The privilege serves to alleviate patients' fear that their medical records could be disclosed to the public and cause them embarrassment. Anderson, 972 P.2d at 89; Brillantes, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d at 778. We do not treat the policy underlying this privilege lightly and accordingly hold that rule 506 applies regardless of the stage of the proceedings. ¶ 11 Utah has had a statute providing for a physician-patient privilege in civil cases since before Utah became a state. See, e.g., Compiled Laws of Utah tit. 11, ch. 1, § 382 (1876); Utah Rev. Stat. tit. 73, ch. 53, § 3414(4) (1898). The current version of the physician-patient privilege statute is codified as Utah Code section 78-24-8(4) (2002). As early as 1943, however, the Legislature delegated authority to the courts to make procedural and evidentiary rules. See State v. Banner, 717 P.2d 1325, 1333 (Utah 1986). Ultimately, a 1984 amendment to the Utah Constitution gave our court primary constitutional authority to promulgate procedural and evidentiary rules subject to the possibility of amendment by two-thirds absolute majority vote of the Legislature. Utah Const. art. VIII, § 4; Judicial Article Revision, § 4, 1984 (2d S.S.) Utah Laws 268, 269. ¶ 12 Consistent with that authority, in 1992, we adopted the physician-patient privilege contained in rule 506. See Edward L. Kimball & Ronald N. Boyce, Utah Evidence Law, at 5-144 (2d ed.2004). The advisory committee notes make clear that rule 506 is intended to supersede Utah Code Ann. § [ ] 78-24-8(4). Utah R. Evid. 506 advisory committee note; Utah R. Evid. 501 advisory committee note (stating that § 78-24-8(4)... [is] made ineffectual by the adoption of [rule 506]); see also Debry v. Goates, 2000 UT App 58, ¶ 24 n. 2, 999 P.2d 582 (Thus, the statutory privilege has no further effect. Physician-patient and therapist-patient privileges are now exclusively controlled by Rule 506.). Thus, rule 506 controls our inquiry into the scope of the physician-patient privilege, and we need not consider Utah Code section 78-24-8(4). [2] ¶ 13 Having determined that rule 506 controls, we must now determine whether it applies during a criminal investigation under the Subpoena Powers Act. Contrary to the district court's findings, a privilege applies regardless of the stage of the proceedings. Although rule 1101 of the Utah Rules of Evidence sets forth a number of contexts where most of the rules of evidence do not apply, it expressly disavows any application to privileges. Utah R. Evid. 1101(b) (The rules (other than with respect to privileges) do not apply in the [enumerated situations].). Rule 104(a) also makes clear that, in deciding preliminary questions, a court must still respect valid privileges. Id. 104(a) (In making its determination [the court] is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.). Accordingly, subject to recognized exceptions and the rebuttable presumption discussed below, see infra Part I.C., the physician-patient privilege applies in a criminal investigation under the Subpoena Powers Act. Therefore, the district court erred in basing its refusal to apply the physician-patient privilege on the stage of the proceedings.