Since we have a HIPPA compliant judge this term in the Bronx Civil Court, I found a case, albeit criminal, which while not on point, shows the limits of HIPPA:
People v Jaikaran,2012 NY Slip Op 03464 (2d Dept. 2012)
“Here, the hospital records were properly certified (see CPLR 4518[a]; CPL 60.10) [MY NOTE: DID THEY MEAN 4518(c)] and they included several statements by the complainant wherein she told the hospital staff, inter alia, that she was not sexually active and that she had not been the victim of sexual abuse. These portions of the hospital records were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Ortega, 15 NY3d 610, 616-617). While the People argue that the hospital records were properly precluded on the ground that they were privileged (see CPLR 4504; CPL 60.10), a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation can overcome a statutory privilege (see Davis v Alaska, 415 US 308, 319-320). The right of confrontation furnishes a criminal defendant with (1) the right physically to face those who testify against him or her, and (2) the right to conduct cross-examination (see Pennsylvania v Ritchie, 480 US 39, 51). In this case, the complainant’s statutory physician-patient privilege (see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 283) is in direct conflict with the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation. Therefore, under the circumstances, the policy underlying the statutory privilege “must yield to the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation”
Again, HIPPA and privileges have their limits. I think this case is right on point for that proposition. As to its application to no-fault, I leave the application of this case to others out there.
