 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Downs9/23/2005
BEFORE: CARTER, C.J., WHIPPLE AND DOWNING, JJ.
This writ application concerns whether the trial court erred in denying the relator, Virginia Down's, motion in limine to exclude from evidence certain medical records. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court's ruling that denied relator's motion in limine and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Relator is charged by misdemeanor bill of information with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, first offense (count 1), a violation of La. R.S. 14:98(B); careless operation (count 2), a violation of La. R.S. 32:58; and safety belt use required (count 3), a violation of La. R.S. 32:295.1(A). Relator filed a motion to suppress in which she sought suppression of any and all blood-alcohol tests obtained in this matter on the grounds that the tests were taken in violation of La. R.S. 32:661 et seq. and were taken in violation of her constitutional rights. Relator also sought suppression of any and all statements given by her as they were given in violation of her constitutional rights. Relator filed a motion in limine to exclude introduction of relator's medical records from evidence on the ground that the State failed to comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1986, 45 CFR 160.300 et seq., and La. R.S. 13:3715.1(B)(1), Louisiana's statute pertaining to obtaining medical or hospital records. The trial court denied relator's motion in limine, and relator filed an application for supervisory writs, seeking review of the district court's ruling. This Court issued a writ of certiorari to determine if the district court erred when it denied the motion in limine and ordered the parties to file briefs and appear for oral argument.
During the motion in limine hearing, no evidence was introduced and no witnesses testified at the hearing. During argument, counsel stated that on the date of the instant offense, an officer was dispatched to the scene of a one-car accident. Relator was being loaded into an EMS vehicle when the responding officer arrived. Relator was transported to Earl K. Long Hospital. The District Attorney's Office issued a "D.A. subpoena" to request relator's medical records from Earl K. Long. According to relator's application, the D.A. "resorted to a `District Attorney subpoena' unsupported by a court order or an affidavit required by 13:3715.1(B)(1)" to secure the results of relator's blood test performed at the hospital. Relator alleges that no notice of the application of the proposed subpoena was given and no court order accompanied the subpoena served on Earl K. Long Hospital.
At the hearing on the motion in limine, relator's attorney argued that the officer did not conduct any field sobriety tests and he did not take any blood at the time of the incident. Relator argued that the "D.A. subpoena" violates the privacy rule under HIPAA and that the HIPAA preemption rule applies to the Louisiana health care provider privilege according to United States ex rel. Stewart v. Louisiana Clinic, 2002 WL 31819130 (E.D. La. 12/12/02), an unpublished case from the United States District Court. The State countered that Stewart was a civil case and not a criminal matter. The State asserted that because this is a criminal matter, La. Code Evid. art. 510C applies. This article provides that in a criminal proceeding, a patient has no privilege when the communication is a record of results of a blood-alcohol test taken from a person who is under arrest or who was subsequently arrested for an offense related to the test. See La. Code Evid. art. 510(C)(2)(d). It is the State's contention that there is nothing in HIP
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Louisiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|