Dillenbeck v. Hess
New York Court of Appeals
73 N.Y.2d 278, 539 N.Y.S.2d 707, 536 N.E.2d 1126 (1989)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Donald Dillenbeck (plaintiff) sued Sherry Hess (defendant), alleging that Hess killed Dillenbeck’s wife and seriously injured Dillenbeck’s son in a drunk-driving accident for which Hess ultimately was convicted of criminally negligent homicide. Hess’s answer denied Dillenbeck’s allegations and asserted comparative negligence and the failure to wear seat belts as affirmative defenses. Hess, who also was injured in the accident, was taken to the hospital, where she was given a blood-alcohol test for treatment purposes. Pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 3121(a), which authorized discovery of medical information if a party’s mental or physical condition was in controversy, Dillenbeck asked Hess to produce the results of her blood-alcohol test. In support of his motion, Dillenbeck submitted, among other things, evidence that Hess had been drinking alcohol for several hours before the accident. Hess cross-moved for a protective order pursuant to CPLR § 3122, arguing that the blood-alcohol test was protected under CPLR § 4504 by the physician-patient privilege and thus not discoverable. The supreme court rejected Dillenbeck’s request for the blood-alcohol test. The appellate division affirmed. Dillenbeck appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alexander, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
