KENNETH G. GALE, Magistrate Judge.
TO: All Hospitals, Clinics, Pharmacies, Physicians, Social Workers, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Therapists; Governmental Agencies (State and Federal); and All Other Medical Institutions, Practitioners and Health Care Providers.
You are hereby authorized, pursuant to the laws of Kansas and applicable federal law, including but not limited to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), to make available for examination and reproduction by the parties and their counsel denominated in this lawsuit, any and all medical records or psychotherapy records of any type or nature whatsoever and/or any protected health information within your care, custody, or control concerning
Unless specifically excluded by this Order, all medical and mental health records and protected health information, including psychiatric records, in your possession regarding Andrea Cole may be disclosed. Medical documents and protected health information subject to this Order include but are not limited to:
Any attorney of record herein as set forth below may request inspection and reproduction of medical records. Clerical fees and expenses as permitted under K.S.A. 65-4971 shall be paid by the attorney making the request for examination and reproduction.
You are further notified, pursuant to federal and state law, that undersigned counsel of record are hereby authorized and permitted to meet with or speak to Andrea Cole's treating physicians and other health care providers without counsel or the parties, including Andrea Cole, being present or participating, provided the healthcare provider consents to the interview and is provided with a copy of this order prior to the interview. This is based on the Court's finding that Andrea Cole has waived the physician-patient privilege, defined at K.S.A. 60-427, between herself and her health care providers by making claims in the State of Kansas for the recovery of damages based on personal injury to Ms. Cole.
Although this
Defendants' counsel are directed that, before conducting any such ex parte interviews, they shall advise the treating physicians that they are under no obligation to agree to communicate ex parte with counsel.
Pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.512, any party receiving information from a covered health provider pursuant to this Order is prohibited from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which such information was requested; and, any party having received the protected health information shall destroy the protected health information (including all copies made), or return it to the covered entity within 30 days after the end of the litigation or proceeding.
This Order complies with HIPAA federal standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information, 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164 and Kansas Statutes Annotated, K.S.A. 60-427 (physician-patient privilege). This Order also allows the disclosure of information regarding diagnosis and treatment of mental and emotional condition pursuant to K.S.A. 65-5601 et seq. (treatment facility privilege), K.S.A. 74-5323 and 74-5372 (psychologist-patient privilege) and 42 C.F.R. Part 2.
This Order shall be effective throughout the pendency of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties have filed competing motions for a Protective Order regarding ex parte communication with medical providers (Docs. 40, 43). Defendant requests that the Order include language that Plaintiff and her counsel "are prohibited from attempting to dissuade the treating physicians from speaking ex parte with Defendants' counsel." (Doc. 40.) Plaintiff subsequently proposes that the Order state that she and her counsel "may advise treating physicians that they are under no obligation to agree to ex parte communication with Defense Counsel." (Doc. 43.)
The Court finds that neither party has provided a legal basis in support of their proposed language on this issue. As such, Defendant's motion (Doc. 40) is
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's motion (Doc. 40) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDRED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 43) is