Court Opinion

ID: 9730891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:27:11.28672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:10.512102
License: Public Domain

Brennan, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I believe that MCR 2.314(B), when read in conjunction with MCR 2.314(A), reveals that subrule B was intended to apply only to an assertion of the physician-patient privilege made in response to a *75request to produce medical records. I believe that MCR 2.314 is inapplicable to the assertion of the privilege at a deposition and that the court erred in determining that plaintiffs assertion of the privilege at the deposition of two consulting physicians precluded him from introducing any evidence regarding Billie Jean’s physical condition pursuant to MCR 2.314. As noted by the majority, one of the basic rules of statutory construction is that where two statutes encompass the same subject matter, one being general and the other specific, the latter will control. Baxter v Gates Rubber Co, 171 Mich App 588, 590-591; 431 NW2d 81 (1988). In this case, there is a specific court rule covering assertion of the physician-patient privilege in the context of a deposition, and that court rule is MCR 2.302(B)(1)(b).
In further support of this conclusion, I note that this Court, as well as our Supreme Court, has recognized that the rule applicable where a party asserts the physician-patient privilege at a deposition is . MCR 2.302. Domako v Rowe, 438 Mich 347, 355; 475 NW2d 30 (1991); Jordan v Sinai Hosp of Detroit, Inc, 171 Mich App 328, 345; 429 NW2d 891 (1988). MCR 2.302(B)(1)(b) provides, in part, that "[a] party who claims a privilege at a deposition may not at the trial offer the testimony of the deponent pertaining to the evidence objected to at the deposition.” Therefore, plaintiff was only precluded from offering at trial the testimony of the two consulting physicians. The majority points out that this interpretation of the court rule would allow a clever plaintiffs attorney to assert the privilege at the treating physician’s deposition where the plaintiff does not want that physician’s testimony at trial and thereby circumvent the truth. However, it is up to the Supreme Court, not this Court, to change the. court rule. Accordingly, I would reverse.