Court Opinion

ID: 9765027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:48:09.260718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:03.589739
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
concurring.
I am shocked at the majority’s total lack of appreciation of the patients’ interest in the proposed disclosure of this information. “Since the information sought is factual data relating to an investigation of third parties, it is doubtful intervenor status would be granted to patients in this case.” (N. 5) Throughout the majority opinion is reflected an unwarrantedly narrow view of the possible adverse consequences to the patients that might flow from such a disclosure and a reluctance to acknowledge the deference that should be given to the individual’s interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters where that individual’s acts *154are in no way related to criminal activities. At the very least, the patients were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court should have entered an order directing the surrender of the records in question.
However, although I share appellant’s concern for the breach of confidentiality, and I further believe that the court’s action in directing disclosure offended the rights of the patients, these facts would not justify appellant’s refusal to comply with the court’s direction. Any duty owed by appellant or the hospital was discharged by the assertion of the privilege. Thus, there was no justification for any further refusal to comply with the order of the court.