Questions About Discovery in Personal Injury Cases

Wilkes-Barre, PA Personal Injury Lawyers

Discovery is the process that both parties in a personal injury case go through to learn about (or "discover") the facts and evidence available to the case. The following questions talk about the limits and rules of discovery, or what can and can not be used as evidence in a personal injury case.

Can a plaintiff obtain medical records on a surgeon?

In some cases, but the court will balance the need for information against the confidentiality of other patients.

In an October 2012 decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court cited privacy concerns as a basis for denying a request for medical records of similar surgeries performed by a defendant doctor. The court was also concerned about the relevance of records that did not involve care rendered to the plaintiff. In Buckman v. Verazin, 2012 Pa. Super. 216, the plaintiff sought five years of prior medical records to determine a surgeon's experience performing a particular procedure. The court noted that the request related to records involving third parties who had not consented to the release of information. The court also found that actions taken by a surgeon when operating on other patients was not probative of his actions when caring for the plaintiff. In the end, the court found that the need for confidentiality of third party records outweighed any collateral interest the plaintiff may have had in the records. Return to Top

Can opposing counsel gain access to my Facebook during discovery?

Allegheny County Court Denies Discovery Requests to Facebook Postings to "Friends"
Recently, in the case of Trail v. Lesko, Judge Wettick issued an interesting opinion on the discoverability of certain Facebook postings.The opinion resulted from cross Motions to Compel Discovery filed by the parties to an automobile accident case. Both parties wanted access to the other party's Facebook accounts including user names and passwords. Judge Wettick denied both motions. Judge Wettick discussed in his opinion what Facebook was, how it is used and what information is available to users. He considered the protections offered by the Rules of Civil Procedure which protect against the discovery of information that would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, etc (Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b)). He considered the level of intrusion to the parties in this case and the potential value of the information posted on Facebook to the case. He denied discovery of this information after determining that the intrusions this discovery would cause to the parties outweighed the potential value of the information to be obtained from the Facebook accounts.  See the Court's full opinion at Trail v. Lesko, No. GD-10-017249, Allegheny C.P., July 3, 2012, Judge Wettick. Return to Top

Validity of Exculpatory Releases

A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision raises serious questions about the validity of pre-printed release forms. In Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's finding that "releasing recklessness in a pre-injury release is against public policy". In that case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated the ski resort's release form which attempted to release the resort and its employees from liability for reckless conduct. Return to Top