SALEM, Ore. (legal Newsline) - A mother seeking $800,000 in emotional damages over the death of her five-month-old son isn’t a “party” to the lawsuit and isn't required to turn over her own medical and psychological records, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in a decision that was supported by the state trial lawyer association.
The ruling leaves unresolved the question of whether beneficiaries in a wrongful-death action are subject to discovery rules under another theory, the high court said, since in this case the question was only whether they are considered parties under a state procedural statute. Under that law, the only party in this case was the deceased infant, with his mother acting as a court-appointed representative for his estate.
Jessica Dahlton sued Dr. James Kyser and others after her son Holland was born prematurely and died of a heart attack at five months. The defendants moved to obtain Dahlton’s medical records, “including any records pertaining to alcohol or drug use or addiction, and other diseases or health problems.” They cited Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure 44, which allows the defense in tort lawsuits to demand a medical examination and records “when the mental or physical condition” of a “party” is at issue.
The trial judge granted the defense’s request and the plaintiff sought to block it with a writ of mandamus by the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon Trial Lawyers Association filed a brief in support, saying the trial court’s ruling could lead to practical and constitutional problems including forcing beneficiaries with no control over a lawsuit to turn over privileged medical information.
The Oregon Supreme Court, in a July 8 decision, agreed. While ORCP refers to any “civil action where a claim is made for damages for injuries to the party,” that doesn’t mean people seeking money over the death of a relative are parties to the action. The “party” in this case was the deceased infant, the court ruled. In support, the court cited the 1968 edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, where “party” was defined as the person in control of the litigation and excluded “all others who may be affected by the suit, indirectly or consequentially.”
In comments at the time civil procedure rule was drafted, lawmakers said there could be constitutional barriers to requiring non-parties, even a spouse involved in a loss-of-consortium claim, to submit to examinations or turn over medical records.
While the personal representative in a wrongful death does have control over the litigation and may also be a beneficiary, he or she is appointed by the court, the Supreme Court said, and is treated as “legally distinct for the purposes of litigation.” The Supreme Court acknowledged it had previously referred to a personal representative as the “real party in interest” and “nominal party.” But that doesn’t change the fact beneficiaries have no authority over the case, the court concluded.
This case didn’t require the high court to decide whether beneficiaries might be compelled to turn over records under another theory, the court concluded. Since the defendants were asking the court to define the beneficiaries of the wrongful-death suit as “parties,” and they weren’t, the case ended there.