 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Dayton12/28/2000
This original proceeding addresses whether the trial court properly ordered Gretchen Dayton, relator, to produce certain medical health records. Dayton filed a petition for writ of mandamus, maintaining that her records are privileged. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Background
From October 1996 to March 1997, Dayton worked for U.S. Contractors, Inc. (USC), the real party in interest. In April 1999, Dayton sued USC for sexual harassment and retaliation, based on incidents that occurred during her employment.
To defend against the emotional injury damage claims, USC sought medical records pertaining to Dayton's mental health treatment before, during, and after her employment began in 1996. Dayton filed a motion to quash the blanket discovery. After a hearing, the trial court ruled that the medical records before 1995 were not discoverable.
Consequently, Dayton submitted her medical records after 1995 to the trial court for in camera inspection. There is some confusion about whether she seeks to protect either the entire medical records or only certain portions within those records. In her motion for protective order, she requested protection of "certain entries in her medical records," contending that she produced to USC "all entries in these records that relate to her work" and she "redacted . . . the information contained therein [that] is not discoverable." For the trial court's review, she attached the "unredacted records" and "the portions that [Dayton] believes are not properly discoverable by are highlighted."
Although there is no reporter's record of the hearing on the motion to compel, there is a reporter's record of the trial court's ruling. The trial court expressed uncertainty about the highlighted medical records, as follows:
Now much of this information in these records are highlighted. I don't know if [Dayton], when they submitted these records, intended for that to be the nondiscoverable portions. . . I don't know why they were highlighted, why portions of them were. . .
On August 23, 2000, the trial court signed an order requiring Dayton to produce her mental health records after 1995. The trial court did not refer to "certain entries" in the records, but instead ruled that "all of these records" were relevant to Dayton's mental condition. Additionally, the court issued a strict confidentiality order prohibiting USC's counsel from disclosing the records to anyone, including USC employees, without court approval.
Dayton filed a petition for writ of mandamus, maintaining that her records are privileged under Texas Rules of Evidence 509 and 510. On August 31, 2000, this Court temporarily stayed the trial court's August 23, 2000 order pending our consideration of the case. Specifically, we stayed the portion of the order that required Dayton to provide the records in question or that allowed the attorneys of record in the trial court below to inspect the documents currently sealed in the trial court's file. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10.
Today we address whether the trial court erred in ordering production of the medical health records after 1995. The parties do not ask us to decide, and therefore we do not address, whether the records are admissible.
Mandamus Standard of Review
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in limited circumstances. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). A court should issue mandamus only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a legal duty when there is no other adequate remedy at law. See Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Ashworth, 943 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Tex. 1997). The t
Page 1 2 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|