# People v. Popeck

> Appellate Court of Illinois · October 31, 2008 · 385 Ill. App. 3d 806

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9738561

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DENNIS M. POPECK, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** October 31, 2008
- **Citations:** 385 Ill. App. 3d 806; 326 Ill. Dec. 107; 899 N.E.2d 324; 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 1062
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Appleton
- **Judges:** Cook, Appleton
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9738561

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9738561. Public record. Not legal advice.