Opinion ID: 1101400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to exclude the deposition testimony of the plaintiff's physicians which was taken ex parte by the defendants?

Text: ¶ 6. In Scott, we held: 1) the plaintiff's medical privilege regarding any relevant medical information form whatever source is automatically waived for the purposes of and only to the extent to which the plaintiff's condition is put at issue; and 2) evidence obtained from ex parte contacts, without prior patient consent, by the opposing party which is subsequently used during a legal proceeding, is inadmissible. Scott, 704 So.2d at 1003-007. ¶ 7. Johnson urges this Court that since ex parte communication occurred between Defendants and the two doctors, all their testimony, including that given at the depositions where Johnson was represented by counsel, should be excluded. In denying Johnson's motion in limine, the trial court relied on the fact that its order waiving the medical privilege was issued on September 1, 1995, well before this Court's decision in Scott, which was handed down on April 18, 1996. While Scott does require that evidence obtained by the opposing party as a result of ex parte contacts, without prior patient consent, is inadmissible in a subsequent proceeding, exclusion of all the evidence in this case is unjustified. In the case at bar, the trial court's order limited the waiver to relevant information pertaining to the current litigation. ¶ 8. As a general rule, decisions of this Court are to be applied retroactively. See generally Morgan v. State, 703 So.2d 832, 839 (Miss.1997); Anderson v. Anderson, 692 So.2d 65,70 (Miss.1997). However, the application of retroactivity should be balanced with a recognition of possible unfairness where certain events transpired under the former rule. Cain v. McKinnon, 552 So.2d 91, 92 (Miss.1989). A review of both doctors' depositions finds nothing testified to by the doctors that was not discernible from the decedent's treatment records. In addition, Johnson does not identify anything in the depositions that was privileged, irrelevant, or obtained as a result of the ex parte contact. Under these circumstances, there does not appear to be any reason to exclude the doctors' entire depositions. Upon a relevancy hearing, motion in limine, or objection at trial, the trial judge may exclude irrelevant, privileged or other information obtained as a result of the ex parte contact under the Scott rationale. ¶ 9. Defendants argue that the no ex parte contact rule is an unconstitutional restriction on the doctor's fundamental right of free speech. This argument has been settled and is without merit. This Court will not decide a constitutional question unless it is necessary to do so in order to decide the case. Kron v. Van Cleave, 339 So.2d 559, 563 (Miss.1976). Justice Roberts, writing for an unanimous court in Scott, made it clear that the case was decided upon statutory interpretation grounds making it unnecessary to address the constitutional concerns. Scott, 704 So.2d at 1007. Likewise, this Court declines to address Defendants' constitutional argument.