Published by Arfaa Law Group
In complex medical malpractice litigation, discovery disputes often arise over how confidential medical information can be accessed and shared. A recent decision from a Maryland court highlights the limits on informal communications with treating physicians and reinforces the importance of complying with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The court’s ruling clarifies that even when both sides seek efficiency, patient privacy remains paramount. If you or a loved one has suffered harm due to negligent medical care, it is critical to confer with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about your options.
History of the Case
It is alleged that the plaintiffs, a married couple, filed a medical malpractice action asserting that several healthcare providers negligently delayed the diagnosis and treatment of adenoid cystic carcinoma in the plaintiff’s parotid gland. The complaint named multiple defendants, including several physicians and affiliated medical institutions. The plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, and loss of consortium.
It is reported that during discovery, two defendants moved for a qualified protective order that would allow their attorneys to speak informally and privately with certain physicians who had treated the plaintiff. These treating physicians were not employed by the defendants but had relevant medical knowledge about the plaintiff’s condition and care. The defendants argued that these informal, or ex parte, communications would promote fairness by offsetting what they described as a “discovery advantage” held by the plaintiffs, who were free to consult privately with their own physicians. They further contended that such communications would save time and litigation costs.
It is alleged that the plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that allowing informal discussions with treating physicians outside formal discovery would violate HIPAA and compromise patient confidentiality. The plaintiffs maintained that the defendants could have obtained the same information through traditional discovery tools such as depositions or subpoenas but chose not to do so before discovery closed.
Confidentiality in Medical Malpractice Cases
It is reported that the court began its analysis by reviewing the requirements of HIPAA and its implementing regulations, which protect patient health information from unauthorized disclosure. Under federal law, a party seeking access to protected health information in litigation must either obtain a court-issued disclosure order or secure a qualified protective order that governs how the information will be used and destroyed after the case concludes. Courts in Maryland have long held that HIPAA allows disclosure of medical information only through these formal mechanisms.
The court noted that such orders are typically granted only when traditional discovery methods are insufficient and that efficiency or cost-saving concerns are not enough to justify circumventing established procedures. The court cited prior Maryland cases holding that litigants must demonstrate a compelling reason to allow informal ex parte communications with treating physicians, beyond the ordinary burdens of discovery.
The court found that the defendants had not shown good cause for the requested order. The judge emphasized that discovery in the case had already closed and that the defendants had ample opportunity to obtain testimony from the treating physicians through standard discovery processes.
The court rejected arguments that the plaintiffs’ ability to speak privately with their own doctors created an unfair imbalance, explaining that differences in access to witnesses are common in litigation and do not justify bypassing procedural safeguards.
The court further held that informal communications of the kind requested would not only contravene HIPAA’s disclosure provisions but also undermine the integrity of the discovery process. Without a court order or patient authorization, defense counsel could not legally obtain or discuss protected health information outside formal channels. As such, the court denied both the motion for a qualified protective order and a related motion filed by co-defendants seeking the same relief.
Meet with an Experienced Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you believe you or a loved one suffered harm because of negligent medical care, the knowledgeable Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can help you pursue justice. Our firm has extensive experience handling medical malpractice cases involving hospitals, physicians, and healthcare institutions throughout Maryland. Call us today at (410) 889-1850 or complete our online contact form to schedule a consultation.