This action arises from a discovery dispute related to a civil lawsuit pending in Massachusetts Superior Court. Saint Luke Inst., Inc. v. Jones, No. 62, 2020 Md. LEXIS 586, at *4-5 (Nov. 20, 2020). In 2017, Petitioner, Andre Jones, filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging negligent hiring and supervision of Brother Edward Holmes, a member of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston and the Congregation of Sacred Hearts (“CSH”), who is now deceased. Id. at 5. Mr. Jones asserted that documents produced by Defendant CSH noted Brother Holmes underwent psychotherapy at Saint Luke Institute, Inc. (“SLI”) in the early 1990s. Id. at 5-6. SLI is a Catholic organization located in Maryland that offers a full range of psychological screening and educational services for Catholic clergy. Id. at 6. Two psychiatric evaluation reports on Brother Holmes summarized a “caution” and outlined “many signs of risk that should not lightly be dismissed.” Id.
Mr. Jones requested the reports and associated records be produced by defendants; however, the mental health records had been destroyed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston and CSH in the early 2000s. Id. at 6-7. Unable to obtain these documents directly from the defendants, Mr. Jones and the other plaintiffs sought to retrieve these documents from SLI by filing a Motion for the Issuance of Letters of Rogatory and a Commission to take the Deposition of a Non-Resident Witness Custodian of Records. Id. at 7. “The Massachusetts court entered an order granting the motion and issued a Commission and Letters Rogatory.” Id. A letter of rogatory is issued by a Massachusetts court, requesting the appropriate authority in another jurisdiction help in obtaining discovery within that jurisdiction for use in Massachusetts litigation. Id.
Pursuant to the Massachusetts order and Letters of Rogatory, Mr. Jones sought a subpoena from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, requesting that SLI produce Brother Holmes’ records. Id. at 8. SLI filed a motion to quash the subpoena, as this was the incorrect procedural vehicle to use, and Mr. Jones filed a cross-motion for a court order to produce the mental health records. Id. Mr. Jones filed a memorandum in support of his cross-motion, in which he described the Massachusetts action, including allegations of sexual abuse and represented that counts for negligent hiring and negligent supervision were included. Id. at 8-9.
SLI filed a memorandum in opposition, contending that the circuit court would need to inspect the pleadings in the Massachusetts action in order to determine whether Brother Holmes’ mental condition was raised and if such evidence was indeed relevant. Id. at 10.
The circuit court granted Mr. Jones’ cross-motion for an order to produce Brother Holmes’ mental health records and in an order dated January 23, 2019, the court determined that records already in possession of Mr. Jones suggested that more records would be directly relevant to the Massachusetts action. Id. at 10-11. Further, the court rejected SLI’s argument that it was required to review the Massachusetts pleadings and did not court conduct an in camera review of the Complaint or mental health records. Id. at 11. The court then applied a balancing test that is undertaken when a government agency seeks discovery of confidential medical records in connection with a government investigation, first outlined in United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 578 (3d Cir. 1980), and later adopted by Maryland Courts in Dr. K v. State Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance, 98 Md. App. 103, 113-15 (1994) and Doe v. Md. Bd. of Soc. Work Exam’rs, 384 Md. 161, 186 (2004). Id. at 12.
The Court of Special Appeals (“COSA”) reversed and remanded for further proceedings. St. Luke Inst., Inc. v. Jones, 242 Md. App. 617, 631 (2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed the COSA decision, ruling that the circuit court did not apply the correct legal standard when considering whether to order the release of the mental health records. St. Luke Inst., Inc., No. 62, 2020 Md. LEXIS 586, at 17.
SLI contends that under the Confidentiality Act, Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen § 4-307(k)(6), the circuit court erred by ordering the release of all of Brother Holmes’ records without conducting an in camera review in order to determine which records were relevant for disclosure. Id. at 19-20. Further, SLI argues that the court erred by accepting Mr. Jones’ contentions without reviewing the Massachusetts’ Complaint or related pleadings to determine the relevance of the mental health records. Id. at 20. SLI also contends that the court erred in applying the Westinghouse factors, as this analysis only applies when a government agency is seeking medical records, not when a private party litigant is seeking records from a healthcare provider. Id. at 20-21. The Westinghouse factors require that the court consider “the type of record requested, the information it contains, the potential for harm in subsequent nonconsensual disclosure, the injury in disclosure to the relationship for which the record was generated, the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure, the government’s need for access, and whether there is an express statutory mandate, articulate public policy, or other public interest militating towards access.” Doe, 384 Md. at 184-85 (quoting Dr. K, 98 Md. App. at 114-15 (citing Westinghouse, 638 F.2d at 578)).
The Court of Appeals stated that trial courts should balance the civil litigant’s need to obtain relevant, discoverable information against a patient’s privacy interest in accordance with the Maryland discovery rules, the Confidentiality Act and case law. Id. at 24. First, where discovery involves disclosure of mental health records without authorization of a person of interest, the Confidentiality Act only permits disclosure in accordance with a court order, whereby there is a reasonable possibility that review of the documents would result in discovery of usable evidence. Id. at 41. The court must then undertake an examination of the records in order to ensure that the records are relevant and that the court limits disclosure only to the relevant portions. Id. at 43.
The Court of Appeals further stated that in this case, Mr. Jones filed the appropriate motion to compel disclosure of Brother Holmes’ mental health records and requesting a court order consistent with the process required under the Maryland Confidentiality Act. Id. at 53. His memorandum and attached documents were sufficient to determine a need to inspect the records at issue. Id. However, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court, so that a circuit court judge may examine the Complaint filed in the Massachusetts litigation as a part of its relevancy determination. Id. at 55-56. The Court emphasized the importance of undertaking an in camera review in order to determine whether the records could lead the movant to the discovery of usable evidence and further, which portion of the records are relevant to the Massachusetts action. Id. at 56.
An in camera review further protects the interests of patients with confidential records and creates a second line of defense for those who wish to protect themselves in civil litigation. By conducting a relevancy determination of the confidential records, trial courts will be able to limit which documents will further serve the best interest of the patient while also balancing the need to obtain discoverable information. This case will further guide Maryland courts as the discovery of mental health records becomes more transparent in civil litigation.
-Kelsey Lear, Law Clerk
No comments:
Post a Comment