Court Opinion

ID: 9738561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:56:12.832575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.916211
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE APPLETON, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision. While I would agree that a subpoena properly would lie for the production of the mere fact of treatment and the identity of treating professionals, I believe the subpoena here was overbroad. The information sought should be received by testimony from the persons who treated defendant or with whom he otherwise had contact at the hospital. The nature of the information sought, i.e., defendant’s state of intoxication, would not be privileged medical information subject to HIPAA. What was sought by the State would entitle it to know private medical information irrelevant to the charges lodged against defendant.