 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wilson5/31/2001
as to whether or not he advised [Wilson] of the nature of the examination."
The state correctly points out that Hafner "does not hold that the pr ivilege is abrogated [only] if the patient of an IME signs a waiver." That observation, however, is irrelevant. Hafner did not address any privilege issues, and the status of the defendant as an IME physician in that civil case was undisputed. In the absence of any pertinent legal authority or clear evidentiary support for its position, we find no error in the trial court's r ejection of the state's argument, based on the alleged IME, that the privilege did not apply.
DISPOSITION
In sum, because neither the record nor applicable statutes justifies a general abrogation or waiver of the physician-patient privilege in this case, the tr ial court did not err in precluding Krasner's testimony. Accordingly, the trial court's r uling is affirmed.
JOHN PELANDER, Judge
CONCURRING:
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge
M. JAN FLOREZ, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Arizona Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|