Ohio's Physician-Patient Privilege and Grand Jury Subpoenas
The Fourth District Court of Appeals in Ohio recently released an opinion indicating that the trial court erred by refusing to grant a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena requesting medical records from a physician. The grand jury had issued a subpoena ordering the physician to produce the medical records of over 50 patients.
The case is instructive regarding application of the physician-patient privilege to grand jury subpoenas in Ohio. Under Federal privacy regulations, a covered entity may disclose protected health information without a "HIPAA-compliant" authorization in compliance with and as limited by the relevant requirements of a grand jury subpoena. See 45 C.F.R. 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(B). However, an Ohio court has recognized that the state law physician-patient privilege is more stringent than the Federal privacy regulations. See Grove v. Northeast Ohio Nephrology Assoc., 2005-Ohio-6914, Paragraphs 18-23.
The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that in the absence of a prior authorization, a physician or hospital is privileged to disclose confidential medical information in those special situations where disclosure is made in accordance with a statutory mandate or common law duty, or where disclosure is necessary to protect or further a countervailing interest that outweighs the patient's interest in confidentiality. Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp., 1999-Ohio-115 (syllabus).
In this case, the Court found no statutory exception to the physician-patient privilege. In addition, the Court refused to "judicially create a public policy exception to the privilege statute for grand jury subpoenas." Physicians and hospitals should be aware of this opinion (and its analysis) when responding to grand jury subpoenas requesting medical records.
