1999 Pa. Super. 116 - Marek v. Ketyer’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2022
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 379 Pa. Super. 150 - Moses v. McWilliams · 676 F. Supp. 585 - Manion v. N.P.W. Medical Center of N.E. Pennsylvania, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Although the statutory physician-patient privilege was waived by the filing of the lawsuit, this waiver does not permit unfettered disclosure. Rule 4003.6 regulates the manner in which defense counsel obtains information from the plaintiffs treating physician. Regulating the contacts between a treating physician and defense counsel “affects defense counsel’s methods, not the substance of what is discoverable,” Rule 4003.6 is clear in its directive. Only upon consent or through a method of authorized discovery may information be obtained from a party’s treating physician. These procedures protect both the patient and the physician by ensuring that adverse counsel will not abuse the opportunity to contact or interrogate the physician privately. When formal discovery is undertaken in the presence of a patient’s counsel it can be assured that irrelevant medical testimony will not be elicited and confidences will not be breached, preserving the trust which exists between doctor and patient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Rule 4003.6. Discovery of treating physician “Information may be obtained from the treating physician of a party only upon written consent of that party or through a method of discovery authorized by this chapter. This rule shall not prevent an attorney from obtaining information from “(1) the attorney’s client, “(2) an employee of the attorney’s client, or “(3) an ostensible employee of the attorney’s client.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.