Today the Utah Supreme Court issued its decision in Sorenson v. Barbuto, 2008 UT 8, --- P.3d ---, which upheld important patient confidentiality rights.
In Sorenson, Nicholas Sorenson was injured in a car accident. He sought treatment from Utah physician Dr. Barbuto. When Mr. Sorenson brought a personal injury claim, his treating physician, Dr. Barbuto, went to work for the defense lawyers. Dr. Barbuto told the lawyers confidential information about his patient; information that was different from what he'd put in the medical records. The defense lawyers even tried to use Dr. Barbuto--the patient's own physician--as an expert witness in the case.
The district court disallowed it, however, and Mr. Sorenson prevailed on the merits of his personal injury claim. He then brought a separate action against Dr. Barbuto for violating his duty to protect the confidentiality of the physician/patient relationship. At first, the district court dismissed Mr. Sorenson's claim against Dr. Barbuto. But the Utah State Court of Appeals reversed that decision, and held that doctors cannot engage in ex parte, or "one-way," communications with anyone--including defense lawyers--about their patients, without violating their duties to the patient.
Dr. Barbuto took the Court of Appeals' decision to the Utah Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower court's ruling, and went one step further. The Utah Supreme Court also declared that it is unethical for defense lawyers to initiate or engage in ex parte communications with a patient's treating physicians, even when the patient is involved in a lawsuit.
This is an especially important decision in Utah, and for medical malpractice cases. The Utah Medical Insurance Association (UMIA) insures the vast majority of doctors in the state. If you have a medical malpractice claim against one doctor, and are seeing another one for treatment of your injuries, chances are, UMIA insures both of them. The defense lawyers that work for the insurance company can no longer call treating physicians and ask them for help in defending another physician's negligence.
This is a good decision, because it ensures that when you are seeing a doctor for treatment--even for injuries caused by another negligent health care professional--your communications will not be used against you. Further, it guarantees that any information treating physicians have will be disclosed under court supervision, pursuant to an oath of honesty.
