Key Takeaway
New York Court of Appeals case examining how Sixth Amendment confrontation rights can override HIPAA privacy protections in criminal proceedings involving hospital records.
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) 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.
Related Articles
- Court guidance on the business records exception to hearsay rules
- Expert medical testimony and unsworn MRI reports as competent evidence
- Civil Court decisions in No-Fault insurance cases and evidentiary challenges
- Foundation requirements for medical malpractice expert testimony
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, New York’s evidence rules regarding medical records admissibility may have been modified through amendments to CPLR 4518 and related procedural statutes, and federal HIPAA regulations have undergone revisions that could affect the intersection of privacy protections and confrontation rights. Practitioners should verify current provisions of both New York evidence law and federal privacy regulations when addressing medical record disclosure issues.
