Rucinski v. More Restoration Co. Inc.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of defendants' request to compel plaintiffs to provide HIPAA-compliant Arons authorizations for depositions of medical providers concerning statements about the cause of a construction accident. The court held that the requested discovery was relevant but that Arons authorizations were unnecessary because defendants sought depositions under CPLR 3101(a)(4), rather than informal interviews. The court dismissed the remaining appeal as premature because there was no indication that the proposed subpoenas had been issued or served.

Holdings

1. No. Because defendants sought depositions under CPLR 3101(a)(4), rather than informal interviews under Arons v. Jutkowitz, plaintiffs were not required to provide HIPAA-compliant authorizations.
2. No. The appeal concerning the proposed subpoenas was dismissed as premature because there was no indication that the subpoenas had been issued or served.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to compel plaintiffs to provide HIPAA-compliant Arons authorizations so defendants could depose plaintiff's medical providers about statements in medical records concerning the cause of the accident.
2. Whether the Appellate Division could determine the propriety of proposed subpoenas that had not been issued or served.

Disposition

affirmed