Zdroik v. Reimann, 18-CV-244-JPS. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20180827c99
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 2018
Summary: ORDER J.P. STADTMUELLER , District Judge . On June 11, 2018, Defendant Tina Hose ("Hose") filed a motion asking the Court to permit her counsel to have ex parte communications with Plaintiff's treatment providers. (Docket #59). She argues such communications are necessary to investigate Plaintiff's claim that his medical providers were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need stemming from a stroke he suffered while in custody. Hose's motion indicates that Plaintiff objected
Summary: ORDER J.P. STADTMUELLER , District Judge . On June 11, 2018, Defendant Tina Hose ("Hose") filed a motion asking the Court to permit her counsel to have ex parte communications with Plaintiff's treatment providers. (Docket #59). She argues such communications are necessary to investigate Plaintiff's claim that his medical providers were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need stemming from a stroke he suffered while in custody. Hose's motion indicates that Plaintiff objected t..
More
ORDER
J.P. STADTMUELLER, District Judge.
On June 11, 2018, Defendant Tina Hose ("Hose") filed a motion asking the Court to permit her counsel to have ex parte communications with Plaintiff's treatment providers. (Docket #59). She argues such communications are necessary to investigate Plaintiff's claim that his medical providers were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need stemming from a stroke he suffered while in custody.
Hose's motion indicates that Plaintiff objected to her counsel's ex parte communications with his treatment providers, apparently on the basis of physician-patient privilege. Id. at 1-2. However, Plaintiff has not responded to Hose's motion and the time for such a response has long since elapsed. And in any event, Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides that in cases in federal court where federal law supplies the rule of decision, the question of privilege is a matter of federal common law, and federal common law does not recognize a physician-patient privilege. Patterson v. Caterpillar, Inc., 70 F.3d 503, 506 (7th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Tina Hose's motion for an order permitting ex parte communications with Plaintiff's medical providers (Docket #59) be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
Source: Leagle
