Mertis v. Oh, 2024 Pa. LEXIS 878 (Pa., June 18, 2024) (Pellegrini, J.)
Mertis v. Oh, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, decided June 18, 2024
This case concerns application of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.6.
Opinion by Justice Mundy.
Pa.R.Civ.P. 4003.6. Specifically, we must determine whether the first exception to Rule 4003.6 (client exception) permits an attorney to obtain information outside the discovery process from one of the plaintiff’s nonparty treating physicians, who becomes the attorney’s client after another attorney in the same law firm became previously engaged to represent a named defendant physician in the same medical malpractice action. Because we conclude that Rule 4003.6 precludes a law firm representing a defendant treating physician from obtaining information outside the discovery process from a nonparty treating physician by subsequently entering into an attorney-client relationship with the nonparty treating physician, we affirm the Superior Court.
Ultimately, if we conclude Rule 4003.6 permits the conduct in this case, such interpretation would turn Rule 4003.6(1) into a loophole for one attorney in a law firm to represent a defendant doctor and another attorney in the same law firm to represent a plaintiff’s treating physician concurrently. Such reading would undermine the rule and allow attorneys in law firms to have unrestricted access to information from the treating physician. As related to this case, there would be nothing preventing a medical malpractice insurance carrier from sending all the plaintiff-patient’s treating physicians for representation to the same law firm representing a defendant physician to circumvent Rule 4003.6. When the same law firm represents the defendant treating physician and other treating physicians, the concern that one or more of the physicians may be improperly influenced or dissuaded from testifying is heightened.
For these reasons, we conclude that a law firm representing a defendant treating physician cannot obtain information from a nonparty treating physician without the patient’s written consent or through an authorized method of discovery. The Rule 4003.6(1) client exception does not permit a law firm to obtain information from a nonparty treating physician by entering into an attorney-client relationship with that physician when the law firm’s attorneys were already prohibited from obtaining information from that physician under Rule 4003.6 prior to entering such attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court is affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
