January 12, 2012
Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed an interesting privilege issue in
Williams v. State, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), Cause No. 49A02-1103-CR-266. At issue was whether a person could subpoena his own prescription drug records, because a statute requiring the confidentiality of those records did not authorize such a release. The Court engaged in some practical judging and ignored the language of the statute, allowing the release.
less..
In this case, Willaims was arrested for possessing controlled substances. The existence of a valid prescription is a defense to such a charge, but the man could not remember his prescription information. Pursuant to a statute, the Indiana Board of Pharmacy maintained a computerized database that contains information that is required by law to be transmitted by controlled substance prescription dispensers, which includes the information Williams required. Williams sent a subpoena and request for documents to the Board for a copy of "any and all" of his prescription records. The Board moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that a statute prevented it from disclosing this information to Williams. The trial court granted that motion and Williams appealed.
On appeal, the Court recognized that the information requested by Williams was confidential under
I.C. 35-48-7-11.1. That statute described circumstances under which the information could be provided to certain persons, but the patient is not one of the people authorized by statute to receive that information. The Court refused to be strictly bound by this statutory language.
It seems obvious that the confidentiality provisions of Indiana Code Section 35-48-7-11.1 were enacted to uphold the protections of the physician-patient privilege and the pharmacist-patient privilege. Where, as here, a patient seeks to waive those privileges for the purpose of exercising his or her constitutional right to present a complete defense to charges in a criminal case, both the rationale for and the Board's interest in keeping the patient's prescription records confidential evaporate.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the trial court erred when it quashed the subpoena.
It will not be often that a litigant will prevail despite the fact that the plain reading of a statute is contrary to his position. Thus, we should not hope that we will encounter such a situation often in our practices. However, we should keep in mind that the Court of Appeals can be swayed by practical argument from the strict application of apparent law.
Lessons:
- A criminal defendant may subpoena his prescription records from the Board of Pharmacy to defend against a charge of possessing a controlled substance.
- A Court may be persuaded to ignore statutory language by the practical consequences of strictly applying that statute.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/310
