Skip to main content
An interesting discovery case involving the right to obtain alcohol treatment records
Discovery

An interesting discovery case involving the right to obtain alcohol treatment records

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Expert analysis of medical records discovery rights in NY personal injury cases. L.T. v Teva Pharms case study. Call (516) 750-0595 for consultation.

This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 223 published articles analyzing discovery issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.

Understanding Discovery Rights in Medical Records Cases: A Critical Analysis from Long Island and NYC Courts

When it comes to personal injury litigation in New York, few issues are as complex and sensitive as the discovery of medical records, particularly those involving substance abuse treatment. At the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., our experienced Long Island and New York City personal injury attorneys regularly handle cases where the boundaries between relevant evidence and privacy rights must be carefully navigated.

The Fourth Department’s Approach to Case Analysis

Once a month, the Fourth Department usually barrages us with about 100 or so decisions. The hard part is sifting through them quickly enough and finding the ones that are worth posting. The next few posts will be from the Appellate Department that specializes in short opinions, the use of the “memorandum” and which always fails to award a bill of costs to the prevailing party on appeal.

Case Study: L.T. v Teva Pharms – A Landmark Discovery Decision

L.T. v Teva Pharms. Usa, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 02201 (4th Dept. 2010)

This case is interesting because it explicitly allows certain discovery if medical texts or journals support the medical proposition that the defendant is espousing. Here are the pertinent parts of the opinion:

“Plaintiff suffers from tardive dyskinesia (TD) and alleges that it was caused by her use of defendant’s medication to treat her gastroesophageal disease. All of the articles submitted by defendant link alcohol abuse or dependency to TD only for psychiatric patients who are concomitantly using antipsychotic or neuroleptic medications. The record contains no evidence that plaintiff ever used such medication or, indeed, that she ever suffered from a psychiatric condition, and thus defendant failed to establish a link between plaintiff’s alleged alcohol abuse or dependency in the 1990s and plaintiff’s having developed TD in 2007 (cf. Napoleoni v Union Hosp. of Bronx, 207 AD2d 660; see generally Manley v New York City Housing Auth., 190 AD2d 600, 600-601).

The Discovery Dispute and Court’s Analysis

Defendant contends that antipsychotic medications are sometimes used to treat alcoholics suffering from withdrawal and thus that discovery is warranted because it is possible that plaintiff was prescribed such antipsychotic medications while being treated for her alcohol use. That contention is not properly before us, however, because it is raised for the first time on appeal (see generally CPLR 5501 ; Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985). In any event, the record contains no evidence that plaintiff was ever prescribed such medication and thus does not support defendant’s contention.

While the record does not justify the disclosure of the confidential alcohol treatment records, we agree with defendant that it should be allowed to provide expert witness affidavits and/or “medical texts and journals” establishing a link between alcohol abuse and the development of TD where the person suffering from TD was not a psychiatric patient being treated with antipsychotic or neuroleptic medication (Green v City of New York, 281 AD2d 193, 193). We thus conclude at this juncture that the court properly denied plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order, and we modify the order by denying defendant’s motion without prejudice and vacating the directive that plaintiff provide defendant with HIPAA compliant authorizations permitting release of her alcohol treatment records.”

What This Means for Personal Injury Cases in Long Island and NYC

This decision has significant implications for personal injury practitioners in the Nassau, Suffolk, and New York City metropolitan areas. The court’s approach demonstrates a careful balance between a defendant’s right to present a defense and a plaintiff’s privacy rights, particularly regarding sensitive medical information.

The L.T. v Teva Pharms decision establishes several important precedents that Long Island and NYC personal injury attorneys must consider when handling cases involving medical discovery disputes:

  1. Burden of Establishing Relevance: Defendants must demonstrate a clear connection between the requested records and their defense theory
  2. Scientific Support Required: Medical texts and journals can provide the foundation for discovery requests when properly supported
  3. Privacy Protection: Courts will protect sensitive records when the connection to the case is speculative
  4. Alternative Evidence Paths: Expert testimony may provide a less invasive alternative to confidential record disclosure

HIPAA Compliance and Medical Records Discovery

The intersection of HIPAA regulations and New York’s discovery rules creates a complex legal landscape for personal injury cases. Our experienced Nassau and Suffolk County attorneys understand that proper handling of medical record requests requires careful attention to both federal privacy protections and state procedural requirements.

Best Practices for Medical Record Discovery

When pursuing or defending against medical record discovery in Long Island and NYC personal injury cases, several best practices emerge from this decision:

  • Establish clear medical relevance before seeking sensitive records
  • Consider expert testimony as an alternative to invasive discovery
  • Document the specific medical theories supporting discovery requests
  • Protect client privacy interests through careful motion practice

The Role of Expert Witnesses in Medical Discovery

The court’s emphasis on expert witness affidavits and medical literature highlights the crucial role that qualified medical experts play in establishing the foundation for discovery requests. This approach allows courts to balance legitimate defense needs with patient privacy rights.

Frequently Asked Questions About Medical Records Discovery

Can defendants always obtain my medical records in a personal injury case?

No. While defendants have certain discovery rights, courts must balance these rights against patient privacy. As the L.T. v Teva Pharms case demonstrates, defendants must establish a clear connection between the requested records and their defense theory.

What protection do I have for sensitive medical information?

New York courts recognize strong privacy interests in sensitive medical records, particularly those involving substance abuse treatment. Courts will deny discovery requests that are purely speculative or lack proper medical foundation.

How do expert witnesses affect medical records discovery?

Expert testimony can sometimes provide an alternative to invasive record disclosure. Courts may allow defendants to present expert evidence about medical conditions without requiring disclosure of confidential treatment records.

What should I do if the defense is seeking my private medical records?

Contact an experienced personal injury attorney immediately. Our Long Island and NYC legal team can help protect your privacy rights while ensuring your case proceeds effectively.

Why Choose the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C.?

When facing complex discovery disputes in personal injury cases, you need attorneys who understand both the legal precedents and the practical implications of medical record disclosure. Our team serves clients throughout Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the New York City metropolitan area with:

  • Extensive experience in medical records discovery disputes
  • Deep understanding of HIPAA and New York privacy laws
  • Strong relationships with qualified medical experts
  • Proven track record of protecting client interests

Don’t let improper discovery requests compromise your personal injury case. Contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. today at (516) 750-0595 for a consultation about your rights and options. Our experienced Long Island and NYC personal injury attorneys are here to protect your interests and fight for the compensation you deserve.


Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, New York’s discovery rules regarding medical records have potentially been modified through amendments to CPLR provisions and updates to HIPAA privacy regulations. Additionally, court decisions interpreting the scope of discoverable substance abuse treatment records may have evolved, and practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent appellate decisions when handling similar discovery disputes involving protected health information.

Legal Context

Why This Matters for Your Case

New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.

About This Topic

Discovery Practice in New York Courts

Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.

223 published articles in Discovery

Keep Reading

More Discovery Analysis

Evidence

CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation

NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.

Feb 18, 2026
Discovery

Another Discovery

Appellate Term ruling on discovery objections shows courts won't disturb trial court discretion when defendants fail to timely object within CPLR's 20-day period.

May 22, 2021
Discovery

Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances

Analysis of Appellate Term decision limiting CPLR 3212(f) relief in three circumstances. Essential guidance for NY civil practice and discovery strategy.

Feb 25, 2010
Discovery

Facebook is discoverable upon a proper foundation

New York court establishes proper foundation requirements for Facebook discovery in personal injury cases, rejecting automatic disclosure of entire accounts.

Feb 19, 2018
Discovery

The articulable need test for a provider EBT on a medical necessity case

New York court ruling shows that provider depositions in no-fault cases require "articulable need" - even minimal disclosure may suffice to block EBT motions.

Apr 11, 2014
Evidence

An psychologist can base his testimony off his own unsworn report – are you really surprised?

Expert psychologist testimony based on unsworn peer review reports is admissible when witness can explain factual basis and be cross-examined in no-fault insurance cases.

Jul 14, 2011
View all Discovery articles

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.

New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.

If you need legal help with a discovery matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Discovery Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how discovery cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For discovery matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review