stating that "[b]ecause access to [the] defendant's medical records solely for the date of the accident [was] relevant, material, and not privileged, the subpoena was sufficiently limited in scope and should have been granted"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "[b]ecause access to [the] defendant's medical records solely for the date of the accident [was] relevant, material, and not privileged, the subpoena was sufficiently limited in scope and should have been granted"
- finding subsection 8- 802(4) allowed the release of defendant’s medical information as it related to an element of the charged driving while under the influence (DUI) offense
- because access to the defendant's medical records for the date of his alleged DUI offense was relevant, material, and not privileged, the subpoena was sufficiently limited in scope and should have been granted
- “Because access to defendant’s medical records solely for the date of the accident is relevant, material, and not privileged, the subpoena was sufficiently limited in scope and should have been granted.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PRESIDING JUSTICE APPLETON, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision. While I would agree that a subpoena properly would lie for the production of the mere fact of treatment and the identity of treating professionals, I believe the subpoena here was overbroad. The information sought should be received by testimony from the persons who treated defendant or with whom he otherwise had contact at the hospital. The nature of the information sought, i.e., defendant’s state of intoxication, would not be privileged medical information subject to HIPAA. What was sought by the State would entitle it to know private medical information irrelevant to the charges lodged against defendant.