The Georgia Supreme Court has clarified how courts must weigh an individual’s constitutional right to medical privacy against another party’s need for those records during a civil lawsuit.
The recent ruling pertains to a civil suit between two individuals once in a 13-year-relationship. When the long-term relationship between Maggie Moulton and William Goodell ended, Moulton sued Goodell, alleging he transmitted genital herpes to her without disclosing that he was infected.
When the case began, Moulton asked for medical records detailing Goodell’s medical history. During discovery, she sought primary care provider information, records from all of his medical visits spanning more than a decade, and identification and records associated with medical laboratory reports dating back to 2020.
Goodell objected to the requests, saying it was protected by the right to privacy under the state’s constitution. The objection prompted Moulton to file a motion asking the trial court to compel Goodell to produce the information and asked for a protective order from the court detailing how the medical documents could be used.
Among Moulton’s arguments for the paperwork:
- Georgia law recognizes a lawsuit for the negligent transmission of a sexually transmitted disease, plaintiffs necessarily must have some ability to obtain medical information needed to prove such a claim.
- Goodell had placed his medical condition at issue by denying her allegation that he had herpes during their relationship.
- Goodell had waived at least some of his privacy rights during their relationship. Among other things, she said Goodell had named her as his health care agent, allowed her to accompany him into examination rooms during medical appointments, and left medical documents and medications where she could see them while they lived together.
The trial court, however, did not agree with Moulton and would not compel Goodell to provide the medical records. The judge said the records were protected by Georgia’s Constitution and that Goodell had not waived the privacy protections during the relationship with Moulton or through the court case.
Court of Appeals Overturns Trial Court Decision
Moulton appealed the trial court decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals and the decision was vacated.
In that opinion, the Court of Appeals said that parties are allowed to obtain information that is not privileged and that Georgia does not recognize a general physician-patient privilege.
Because Moulton had asserted a legally recognized claim and sought medical information potentially relevant to that claim, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial judge should determine which information she was entitled to receive and narrowly tailor the discovery accordingly.
The Court of Appeals also concluded that Goodell’s constitutional privacy rights had been sufficiently protected because he had received notice and an opportunity to object during a hearing.
Goodell appealed the Court of Appeals ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court, asking the state’s high court to determine civil litigation-related balances for privacy and medical record release.
SCOGA Ruling
The ruling this week from the state’s highest court overturned the Georgia Court of Appeals ruling. The decision doesn’t ‘end’ the case, but rather sends it back to the lower courts for further consideration.
While the medical information at issue does fall under the constitutional right to privacy, the Georgia Supreme Court said the prohibition on release is not absolute. Judges, justices said, must look at each instance on a case-by-case basis by balancing the competing interests.
The precedent is more than 120 years old: the 1905 case of Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co in which the court determined there is a constitutional right to privacy in Georgia, but also said that privacy rights sometimes conflict with the legitimate rights and interests of others.
The issue at hand, SCOGA said this week, is that Goodell’s privacy rights were considered by the court, but Moulton’s competing interest in obtaining information potentially necessary to prove her lawsuit were not.
The decision means that neither side automatically wins when constitutionally protected medical information becomes relevant to a civil lawsuit. A judge cannot simply conclude that the records are private and therefore inaccessible. At the same time, medical records may be relevant, but that does not mean they are automatically subject to release during a civil suit’s discovery process.
Judges must also consider how to minimize unnecessary disclosure, like using protective orders or limiting how the private information can be shared ahead of trial. Another route suggested was the process of stipulation, which allows parties to agree that certain facts are true, which would mean they would simply be acknowledged and supporting documents would not need to be disclosed.
All of the justices concurred in the judgment.
Now…
The case heads back to the trial court for consideration since the question for the Georgia Supreme Court was not whether the documents should be released, but whether or not the lower court properly weighed the conflicting sides.
The high court declined to rule on the question of whether or not Goodell waived his medical privacy rights during his relationship with Moulton when he placed her on some medical paperwork.
