Making the Best Use of 'Arons' Authorizations
Medical Malpractice Defense columnists John L.A. Lyddane and Barbara D. Goldberg write: Neither practicing physicians nor defense attorneys have much spare time, and it is unlikely that an 'Arons' interview will become a high priority task for a non-party provider. Even where a letter request is accompanied by a properly executed authorization, it is unlikely to produce an interview without further effort. What makes the further effort worthwhile is the prospect that the non-party witness is one of the least biased sources of information on a broad list of topics which are relevant to the evaluation and presentation of the defendant's position.
September 18, 2017 at 02:03 PM
15 minute read
It has now been over 20 years that attorneys defending medical malpractice cases have had to confront the restrictions imposed by HIPAA, and almost 10 years since the Court of Appeals established the means whereby informal interviews of physician fact witnesses may be conducted. The court in Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 N.Y.3d 393 (2007) established the ground rules for defense counsel to discuss protected health information with non-party medical providers who have participated in the treatment of patients who waived the physician-patient privilege by placing their medical conditions in controversy. Arons authorizations are now widely available in personal injury litigation at any point in the proceedings, with the court-stated preference that the interviews be conducted prior to the filing of the note of issue. See Shefer v. Tepper, 73 A.D.3d 447 (1st Dep't 2010); Wright v. Stam, 81 A.D.3d 721 (2d Dep't 2011); and Akalski v. Counsell, 29 Misc.3d 936 (Sup. Ct., Westchester Co., 2010).
Arons interviews are particularly important to attorneys defending medical malpractice cases because the information gained may be useful in assessing every aspect of informed consent, standard of care, causation, prognosis, and the quantification of damages. The interview may be obtained to assist in the preparation for the depositions of the parties (per La Rose v. Cricchio, 33 Misc.3d 865 (Sup. Ct., Rockland Co., 2011)) and may include interviews of paraprofessionals in addition to physicians. See Caminiti v. Extel West 57th Street, 139 A.D.3d 482 (1st Dep't 2016).
While most defense attorneys are oriented toward the identification of potential fact witnesses among the non-party treating physicians, and the securing of Arons authorizations, many of those authorizations do not produce useful interviews. Neither practicing physicians nor defense attorneys have much spare time, and it is unlikely that an Arons interview will become a high priority task for a non-party provider. Even where a letter request is accompanied by a properly executed authorization, it is unlikely to produce an interview without further effort.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Judge Precludes Ballistics Expert's Opinion on Scene for 2016 Fatal Police Shooting
Authentication and Reliability of AI and Digital Evidence – What Must The Expert Demonstrate
Communications With Non-Retained Experts May Be Subject to Disclosure
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Land Use Issues Presented By Cold Storage Warehouses
- 2Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 3Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 4SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 5Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250