Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

869 P.2d 319

Higginbotham v. Jackson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 22, 1994

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · decided 1994-02-22

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2007

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“12 0.8. § 2508(D)(8) qualifies the physician/patient privilege 'to the extent that an adverse party in said proceeding may obtain relevant information regarding said condition by statutory discovery.'”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Holmes v. Nightingale

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-02-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

¶2 Original jurisdiction is assumed. Writ issued prohibiting Niles Jackson, District Judge, Oklahoma County, or any other assigned Judge from enforcing the order filed November 10, 1993 in Cause No. CJ-93-6324-65 on the docket of the District Court, Oklahoma County, styled Johnny Higginbotham, et al. v. Cox Cable of Oklahoma City, Inc. There is no statutory discovery method contained in the Oklahoma Discovery Code that requires a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit to execute in favor of the defendant a general medical authorization entitling defendant to obtain all of plaintiffs medical records. 12 O.S. § 2503(D)(3) qualifies the physician/patient privilege “to the extent that an adverse party in said proceeding may obtain relevant information regarding said condition by statutory discovery.” 76 O.S.1991 § 19(B) applies only to medical malpractice plaintiffs.

/s/ Ralph B. Hodges Chief Justice LAVENDER, V.C.J., and HARGRAVE, OPALA, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur.
/869/p2d/319 · .json · Public domain