## Facts

- Plaintiffs sued a hospital and medical providers for alleged negligence during the labor and delivery of their daughter, Deanna, claiming resulting central nervous system injuries including cerebral palsy and severe intellectual disability.
- After the suit was filed, plaintiffs had two additional daughters, Katie and Kimberly, who were not parties to the action.
- Katie appeared healthy; Kimberly developed similar developmental problems to Deanna’s.
- Defendants pursued an alternative-causation theory that Deanna’s condition could be genetic or familial rather than birth-related negligence.
- During discovery, defendants moved to compel (1) production of Katie’s and Kimberly’s medical records and (2) physical examinations of both non-party siblings.
- Plaintiffs objected, asserting the physician–patient privilege for the records and arguing the court rule authorizing compulsory examinations applied only to parties.

## Issues

1. Whether the physician–patient privilege protecting non-party minor siblings’ medical records was waived or otherwise overcome because the parents sued for another child and the siblings’ conditions were relevant to causation.
2. Whether a court may order non-party minor siblings to submit to physical examinations under the rule permitting examinations when a person’s condition is “in controversy.”

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of both defense motions.
- The court held the physician–patient privilege belonged to the non-party minor patients (Katie and Kimberly) and was not waived by the parents’ malpractice suit for Deanna.
- The court held the compulsory examination rule applied only to a “party” whose condition is in controversy; because Katie and Kimberly were not parties, examinations could not be ordered.

## Legal Principles

- The physician–patient privilege is statutory and protects confidential physician–patient communications; it is personal to the patient, including a minor patient.
- Relevance of medical information to disputed causation does not, by itself, defeat the physician–patient privilege absent waiver or an applicable statutory exception.
- Compulsory physical or mental examinations under the court rule are limited to parties whose condition is in controversy and require good cause.
- Courts may order production for examination of a minor who is a party through a parent or guardian, but the rule does not authorize compelled examinations of non-parties.

## Conclusion

The court preserved non-party minors’ medical privacy by enforcing the physician–patient privilege and by limiting compelled examinations to parties, even though the requested discovery could have supported a genetic-causation defense in a birth-injury malpractice case.


Dierickx v. Cottage Hosp. Corp., 152 Mich. App. 162, 393 N.W.2d 564 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)