## Facts

- Dale F. Morris, a coal miner employed by Consolidation Coal Company, alleged he suffered work-related leg and back injuries on July 10, 1991.
- Morris missed work on July 11 and 12, 1991, and was treated by Dr. Michael R. Schwarzenberg.
- Over subsequent weeks, Dr. Schwarzenberg diagnosed strains/contusions and issued multiple written recommendations that Morris remain off work.
- Morris filed a workers’ compensation claim supported by a physician section of a WC-123 form completed by Dr. Schwarzenberg.
- On September 16, 1991, Consolidation’s representative met privately with Dr. Schwarzenberg at the doctor’s office, showed photographs/video of Morris performing trench work on several July dates, and discussed Morris without Morris’s notice or presence.
- After this meeting, Dr. Schwarzenberg notified the Workers’ Compensation Division that he could not certify Morris as disabled; the claim was ultimately rejected, and Morris later lost his job.
- Morris sued Dr. Schwarzenberg and Consolidation, alleging breach of physician–patient confidentiality and breach of fiduciary duties based on the ex parte communications in the workers’ compensation context.
- The circuit court certified legal questions to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia regarding the permissibility and limits of ex parte physician communications with an adversarial employer in a workers’ compensation proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether a fiduciary relationship exists between a treating physician and a workers’ compensation claimant.
2. Whether that fiduciary/confidential relationship prohibits oral or other ex parte communications with an adversarial employer that involve confidential medical information, absent statutory or rule-based authorization.
3. Whether filing a workers’ compensation claim and the statutory requirement of written medical reports under W. Va. Code § 23-4-7 constitutes consent to oral ex parte interviews or other disclosures beyond authorized written reports.

## Decision

- The court answered the certified questions by recognizing a fiduciary physician–patient relationship in the workers’ compensation setting.
- The court held the fiduciary relationship bars oral ex parte communications involving confidential information, and bars other ex parte disclosures of confidential information not authorized by applicable workers’ compensation statutes or procedural rules.
- The court held that a claimant’s filing of a workers’ compensation claim constitutes consent to release statutorily required written medical reports under W. Va. Code § 23-4-7, but does not waive confidentiality to permit unauthorized ex parte oral communications with the adversarial party.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings under these legal standards; the opinion did not decide liability or damages on the underlying tort claims.

## Legal Principles

- A fiduciary relationship exists between a physician and patient, and that fiduciary duty extends to treating physicians and claimants in workers’ compensation proceedings.
- Filing a workers’ compensation claim effects only a limited consent to disclosure: the claimant consents to statutorily required written medical reports, not to broader informal disclosures.
- Ex parte communications between an adversarial party and a treating physician that provide confidential medical information are prohibited unless expressly authorized by governing statutes, procedural rules, or court-approved discovery methods.
- Any implied waiver of medical confidentiality from placing a condition at issue is limited to what is necessary for the proceeding and does not authorize private discussions with the claimant’s adversary outside authorized processes.

## Conclusion

The court established that treating physicians owe workers’ compensation claimants fiduciary confidentiality and that claim filing authorizes only the statutory exchange of written medical reports, not unauthorized ex parte employer contacts that disclose confidential medical information, leaving further factual and tort issues for remand.


Morris v. Consolidation Coal Co., 191 W. Va. 426, 446 S.E.2d 648 (1994)