Summary
In Porcha, the plaintiff was found to be entitled to the billing and payment records of a medical expert who was to offer opinion testimony at trial and these records would assist plaintiff to prepare questions for cross-examination concerning the doctor's bias or interest.
Summary of this case from Hanna v. Roswell Park Cancer Inst. Corp.Opinion
1306 CA 17-00843.
11-17-2017
Octavia PORCHA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Grace BINETTE and Janet Binette, Defendants–Appellants. Hubert F. Riegler, M.D., and Legal Med, Nonparty Appellants.
Law Offices of John Wallace, Rochester (Valerie Barbic of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants. Burgio, Kita, Curvin & Banker, Buffalo (Hilary C. Banker of Counsel), for Nonparty Appellants. The Wright Firm, LLC, Rochester (Ron F. Wright of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
Law Offices of John Wallace, Rochester (Valerie Barbic of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants.
Burgio, Kita, Curvin & Banker, Buffalo (Hilary C. Banker of Counsel), for Nonparty Appellants.
The Wright Firm, LLC, Rochester (Ron F. Wright of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, DEJOSEPH, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. At the request of defendants, plaintiff was examined by nonparty Hubert F. Riegler, M.D., who was employed by nonparty Legal Med, a third-party medical examination vendor (hereafter, nonparties). Defendants' insurer paid for the examination. After defendants gave notice that they intended to call Dr. Riegler as an expert witness at trial, plaintiff served a judicial subpoena duces tecum on the nonparties and defendants' insurer seeking the production of various documents and materials. As relevant to these appeals, in paragraph two of the subpoena plaintiff sought production of all billing and payment records related to examinations performed by Dr. Riegler on behalf of all insurance companies and attorneys for the prior five years. Plaintiff sought such information to ascertain any possible bias or interest on the part of Dr. Riegler.
The nonparties and defendants moved, inter alia, to quash the subpoena, and Supreme Court denied the motions in part. The nonparties and defendants now appeal. Contrary to the contention of the nonparties and defendants, the court properly denied those parts of the motions seeking to quash paragraph two of the subpoena. Plaintiff was entitled to the information to assist her in preparing questions for cross-examination of Dr. Riegler concerning his bias or interest (see Dominicci v. Ford, 119 A.D.3d 1360, 1361, 989 N.Y.S.2d 733 [4th Dept.2014] ; see generally Salm v. Moses, 13 N.Y.3d 816, 818, 890 N.Y.S.2d 385, 918 N.E.2d 897 [2009] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.