Opinion
17-CV-7461-DLI-SJB
11-26-2018
Vielka Rosario De VARGAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
Linda Simmons, Larry Hallock, Hallock & Malerba PC, Deer Park, NY, for Plaintiff. Rachel G. Balaban, U.S. Attorney's Office, EDNY, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant.
Linda Simmons, Larry Hallock, Hallock & Malerba PC, Deer Park, NY, for Plaintiff.
Rachel G. Balaban, U.S. Attorney's Office, EDNY, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant.
ORDER
SANKET J. BULSARA, United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant has filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide unlimited HIPAA releases for all health care providers she has seen. Plaintiff contends that she is only required to provide health records for those providers she saw following the incident that is the basis of her lawsuit. Defendant's motion is granted.
There can be no dispute that Plaintiff has put her medical condition and her medical history at issue; she seeks damages for injuries suffered following an accident she alleges was caused by Defendant, and she herself concedes she is required to provide medical records for some period of time. "A plaintiff waives his right to privacy in his medical records when he puts his medical condition at issue in a lawsuit." Gill v. Gilder , No. 95-CV-7933, 1997 WL 419983, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 1997) ; e.g. , Anderson v. City of New York , No. 05-CV-4422, 2006 WL 1134117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2006) ("[T]his Court finds that plaintiff has placed her mental condition at issue in this litigation and consequently has waived her right to prevent the disclosure of her mental health records."); Wallace v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. , No. 11-CV-994, 2012 WL 5503775, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 13, 2012) ("The plaintiff is claiming significant damages resulting from her physical injuries. As a result, the defendant is entitled to the plaintiff's medical information.") (collecting cases).
Plaintiff fails to provide any basis to deny Defendant's access to records for providers other than those she saw after the accident. All she argues is that Defendant has failed to set forth any good faith basis for the release of the additional records. The assertion misapprehends the discovery burden when Plaintiff has put her medical condition at issue. It is Plaintiff that must demonstrate that Defendant's request for records is beyond its entitlement to such records given the nature of the claims asserted by Plaintiff. And Plaintiff has failed to make any such showing. Defendant is certainly entitled to explore whether the injuries Plaintiff claims resulted from Defendant's conduct were in fact caused by someone else or resulted from some pre-existing condition. Moore v. Chertoff , No. 00-CV-953, 2006 WL 1442447, at *2 (D.D.C. May 22, 2006) ("Plaintiffs may not withhold from the defendant as irrelevant medical records that could be probative of potential causes contributing to plaintiffs' alleged injuries."). Plaintiff may not put her medical condition at issue, lay the blame for those conditions or injuries on Defendant, and simultaneously shield some portions of her medical history. E.g. , Deckler v. Olander , No. 12-CV-277, 2013 WL 1914485, at *1 (D. Conn. May 8, 2013) ("[D]efendants are entitled to know the state of plaintiff's health prior to the accident.").
Plaintiff cites not a single case for her position, and offers no basis to limit the requests (either in time or scope) other than to say that pre-incident records are not subject to discovery. Defendant is entitled to Plaintiff's medical records prior to the time of the accident. As a result, the motion to compel is granted, and Plaintiff is directed to sign medical releases provided by Defendant.
The other portions of the motion to compel—including those arising out of an incorrect social security number—appear to have been resolved; the Court thus denies the request for any other relief as moot.
SO ORDERED.