What's happening
This bill prohibits parties in certain lawsuits from conducting private interviews with another party's healthcare providers without consent.
Why it matters
Strengthens patient privacy. by preventing opposing parties in lawsuits from having private, potentially coercive conversations with a patient’s healthcare providers, reducing the risk of sensitive information being disclosed or misused without the patient’s knowledge or consent.
Levels the playing field in litigation. by ensuring that both sides access medical information through formal legal channels (like depositions or subpoenas) rather than informal backdoor interviews, which can help prevent one party from gaining an unfair advantage.
Protects the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. , as healthcare providers are less likely to feel pressured or uncomfortable discussing patient details outside of official legal settings, which can preserve trust and candor in medical care.
Limits exceptions only to the patient’s own legal team. , ensuring that only the patient’s attorney (or their agents) can have these private discussions with treating providers, thus maintaining patient autonomy over their own medical information during litigation.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Limit Access to Patient Records
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to judiciary
- Referred to judiciary
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
Ban Secret Doctor Interviews
Assembly Floor Calendar · Sponsor Jeffrey Dinowitz
Full text
1 pageUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
6194
2019-2020 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
May 22, 2019
Introduced by Sen. PARKER -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary
AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to enacting the "patient privacy protection act"
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Short title. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "patient privacy protection act".
§ 2. Section 3102 of the civil practice law and rules is amended by adding a new subdivision (c-1) to read as follows:
(c-1) Ex-parte interviews. In any action involving personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, or wrongful death, no party or anyone acting on behalf of a party may either directly or indirectly conduct ex-parte interviews with the treating physicians or other health care providers of any other party. Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit an attorney or the agent or employee of an attorney who represents the patient, the estate of the patient, or the natural or duly appointed guardian of the patient whose condition is at issue in the action from conducting ex-parte conversations with a treating physician or other health care provider of the patient.
§ 3. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law and shall apply to all actions involving personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, or wrongful death filed on and after such date and to all such actions pending on such effective date except as to conduct prohibited by section two of this act which occurred prior to such effective date.
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD01266-01-9
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to enacting the "patient privacy protection act"
Purpose of bill
To prohibit in a personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malprac- tice or wrongful death action the defendant from conducting ex parte interviews with the plaintiffs non-party treating physicians.
Summary of provisions
This bill prohibits, in any action involving personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, or wrongful death, a party from conducting ex parte interviews with an adverse party's treating physi- cians. This bill also clarifies that an attorney or the agent or employ- ee of an attorney who represents the patient, the estate of the patient, or the natural or duly appointed guardian of the patient whose condition is at issue in the action may conduct ex parte conversations with a treating physician or other health care provider of the patient.
Read the full memo (847 words)
Justification
This legislation has become necessary because of the interplay between the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 use Section 1320(d) et seq.) commonly referred to as HIPAA and the defense bar's practice of privately interviewing plaintiffs' non-party treating physicians, sometimes even after a note of issue has been filed.
Frequently in actions involving personal injury, medical malpractice and wrongful death defense counsel have requested that plaintiff execute authorizations which would, pursuant to HIPAA, have permitted them after the filing of the note of issue to informally and privately interview non-party treating physicians who rendered care to the plaintiff or decedent, as the case may be, related to the action. Plaintiffs who believe that such interviews are either unwarranted or not authorized by law have often declined to execute such authorizations and this has created a great deal of legal and judicial comment about the efficacy of these post-note of issue requests for discovery.
It has never been in much question that a plaintiff in a personal injury or medical malpractice action waives the physician-patient privilege with respect to those physical or mental conditions whiCh he or she has placed in issue in the lawsuit. Defendants in such actions have a right to disclosure regarding the relevant medical conditions in issue and they may utilize any of the disclosure devices set forth in CPLR Article 31 to obtain such disclosure. However, CPLR Article 31 does not inClude a provision authorizing defense counsel on behalf of his or her client to meet privately with plaintiffs treating physician. Further, because of the availability of disclosure under CPLR Article 31, such private interviews had been prohibited during discovery, prior to the filing of a note of issue.
Since the adoption of HIPAA in 1996, issues concerning patient privacy have been of increasing concern and defense counsel attempting to speak privately with plaintiffs' non-party treating physiciano'have had to comply with the requirements of HIPAA. Physicians require either written authorizations signed by the plaintiff which comply with HIPAA and which permit oral communication or a court order authorizing such oral commu- nications which likewise complies with HIPAA. When plaintiffs refuse after the filing of a note of issue to execute such authorizations, defendants have moved to compel plaintiffs' execution of such authori- zations. This has resulted in the Court of Appeals' holding in Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 NY 3d 393 (2007), where the Court held that an attorney may interview an adverse party's treating physician privately. This holding permits defense counsel to use HIPAA compliant authorizations to inter- view treating physicians at anytime, both prior to and after the filing of the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness. This creates an inconsistency within CPLR Article 31, and creates the possibility of significant post-note of issue discovery, which is expressly prohibited by the Uniform Rules for New York State Trial Cou rts unless the party seeking the discovery can demonstrate that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" have developed subsequent to the filing of the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness which requires additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice. 22 NYCRR 202.21(d).
This legislation would make it clear that in any action involving personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, or wrongful death the defendant is barred from conducting ex parte interviews with a party's treating physicians.
Legislative history
2017-18- A.9030 - Third Reading Calendar/S.243 - Referred to Judiciary 2016: A.242/S.287 - A. Codes/S.Judi 2015: A.242/S.287 - A. Rules/S.Judi 2014: A.2365/S.1046 - A. Cal/S.Judi 2013: A.2365/S.1046 - A. Codes/S.Judi 2012: A.694-A Lancman/S.3296 - A. Cal/S.Rules 2011: A.694-A Lancman/S.3296 - PA/S. Cal. 2010: A.1254-A Lancman/S.3203-A - A. Cal/S.Rules. 2009: A.1254 Lancman/S.3203-A - PA/S.Codes. 2008: A.8691-B Lancman/S.5256-B - PA/S.Codes 2007: A.8691-A Lancman/S.5256-A - PA/S.Rules
Fiscal implications for state and local governments
None.
Effective date
Shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall become law and shall apply to all actions involving personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, or wrongful death filed on and after such date and to all such actions pending on such effective date except as to conduct prohibited by section one of this act with occurred prior to such effective date.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.