MEDICAL RELEASES
By Dennis R. Kurth, Associate Attorney
Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist
Medical releases can be
problematic in Arizona workers’ compensation cases. The Arizona statute says that the medical
records of a physician treating an injured worker are not privileged
communications that can be withheld from “interested parties” (insurance
carriers) who need the information “…for a proper understanding of the case and
a determination of the rights involved.”
Consequently, a claimant must sign a medical release when requested by
the carrier. (A.R.S. §23-908(D)). There
is often tension, however, between the carrier’s right to get medical records
and the claimant’s right to privacy and to assert their doctor/patient
privilege.
There is also a
category of medical records unrelated to a claimant’s industrial injury that
are considered discoverable by the carriers and their lawyers. Those would be records of treatment for a
condition similar to the industrial injury in the past. For example, if a claimant who sustains a low
back injury at work had a prior low back surgery and pain management treatment,
the carrier would certainly be entitled to those records “…for a proper
understanding of the case.”
Problems arise, however,
when a claimant, usually one unrepresented and entering into litigation at the
Industrial Commission, is presented with a medical release from the carrier or
its lawyers, requiring them to give the carrier and lawyer access to any and
all medical records from any doctor who ever treated the claimant for anything.
These unlimited medical
releases would give the carriers and their lawyers access to sensitive,
personal records of mental health, sexual dysfunction or infectious disease
treatment without regard to the nature of the claimant’s industrial injury. There is always the potential that such
sensitive, personal records might be used by the carrier’s attorney to
embarrass the claimant at the hearing.
These open-ended
medical releases usually arrive with a packet of discovery paperwork like
interrogatories and a deposition notice as well as correspondence from the
carrier’s lawyer threatening the claimant that the release cannot be changed or
modified according to HIPPA but can only be signed and returned. This, even though HIPPA doesn’t apply to
workers’ compensation medical releases.
Clearly, carriers are
not entitled to such a broad unlimited, medical release under the law. The workers’ compensation statute also states
that medical records pertaining to conditions unrelated to the industrial injury
“shall remain privileged.” (A.R.S.
§23-908(A)). A claimant who objects to
signing an unlimited medical release would be on solid legal ground in doing
so.
No comments:
Post a Comment