DISCLOSURE OF MEDICAL RECORDS AND THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP58-00453R000300120085-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 9, 2001
• Sequence Number: 85
• Publication Date: September 6, 1955
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP58-00453R000300120085-7
OGC HAS REVIEWED.
TAB 1
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP58-00453R000300120085-7
Approved ForRele,ase 2007/03/06 : CIA- GQ0300120085-7
6 Septenlbar 1,
d the an
SUBTACTi Disclosure of Medical Re?i
Patient Privilege
it, S.atpl ?
1. This mrand. considers the law surrounding privileged
ommunications between physician and patient and its application
to the question of disclosing CIA medical records to proper adminis-
trative authorities. An earlier study by this Office is embodied in
a memorandum of 20 August 1954 (LS-9267), which examines the problem
generally; a similar general treatment will be found in 58 Am. air.
Si 401 et seq. this paper does not purport to be a general survey
but is, rather, focused upon the particular problem at issue.
2. Communications between physician and patient were not
privileged at common law. Following the passage of a statute in
New York in 3.828 privileging such communications, similar statutee
were introduced elsewhere and are now in effect in about half the
states (77 AIR 679; 25 ALR 2d 1429). In the absence of such a
statute, physician-patient communications are not privileged.
3. Although the exact terms of the statutes vary in different
jurisdictions, and one must examine the applicable statute and the
local decisions in evaluating the admissibility of perticular
testimony or records in a particular case, the local rule, 'whatever
Its details, will:be a rule of evidence. The statutes are applicable
when, in court, it is sought to introduce the testimony of a physician
concerning information he has obtained in the course of a physician-
patient relationship. If, at this point, the patient objects to the
introduction of this testimony, and if the case falls within an
applicable statute, the court must (in some jurisdictions? may)
refuse to permit the testimony.
4. A survey of those riattottone of Lamellate Interest to
this Agency reveals that there is no privilege under the statutes of
Virginia or Nerylena, nor is one edbodied in the federal Rules of
civil or criminal procedure. A privilege is created by the District
of Coluabia Cede, Section 14-308, which, since it appears typical
of such statutes, is quoted here in its entirety.
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP58-00453R000300120085-7
Approved For Release 2007/03/06: CIA-RDP58-00453R000300120085-7
o
celtle in
Coluebts no
consent of
iv*, to disclose any
which be shell have
ssional ospacity
set in that capacity
obtained from the
n or persons in
shall not epp2.7
is charged with
injuries ttpon a human
required in the interests
8.
the
?
possibility of an action for damsges being brought
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : Clg-RDP58-00453R000300120085-7
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP58-00453R000300120085-7
is OWA leas. The GoVennt not be sued without I
Zn giving consent to
Government in the led*
excepted slander and libel actions.
Counsel's Office of the *Veterans Administretionl
not only with the medical records of employees, but also
claimact-eveteraoa? reveals that neither the Veterans Adminis
nor any of its physicians, either full.time or contract employees,
hae ever been the defendant in a civil action arising from the died.
closure of medical records or information. Although the Veterans
44einistration hem a complex system of regulatioos concerning the
dioclosure or medical records, % was advised by their Associate
General Counsel that they vould have no hesitancy in revealing
this infermation to e.ny person whatsoever if they felt that the
interest of the public or the patient sight be served, thereby.
9. In summary, a physician is privileged to withhold infermation
obtained. frau the patient only in the courtroom, and then only If
a statute exists authorizing or requiring ouch vithholding4 if the
patient does not waive the statute, if the information withheld falls
under the statute, and if the court does not direct disclosure.
Outside the courtroom the pthrician, like other persons is subject
to slander or libel suite for malicious disclosure of iformation
reeeived confidentially in the (=roe of treating a patient, just
as he would be subject to similar elation for malicious raving of
information be had obtained outside of his professional duties.
Because of his ealling he Is subject to ethical considerations
which do not bind the average layman, as a result of which the public
at large, and perhaps the courts might hold biz to higher standards
of ccoduct. Discussion of inforMation from or about the patient in
the course of his duties however, as in consultation witha fellow
physician, is not precluded by any rule of law or ethics.
10. Chapter II, election I of the Principles of Medieal Xthics
of the American Medical Association,indicates a recogpition that law
or come= some often require disclosure of medical records. The
question of propriety, as well as ethics, would *ems to preclude a
physician from disclosing detailed clinical information to persons
whose only benefit therefran would be a vicarious malefaction. In
the ease in point, however, ehere: the issue is one of disclosing
medical records obtained by CIA doctors in the course of M.A. business,
concerning CIA employees, to CIA administrative officers who have been
properly designated by the Director to mmke certain determinations for
which this information is neeessary, such disclosure would seem to
violate no principle of ;impiety or ethics. Clearly, it violates
no principle of law.
g. - nunjec
1 - Signer
25X1 A9a
of General Counsel
3
3/06 : CIA-RDP58-00453R000300120085-7
no