Daily Blast October 18, 2016

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division II (Tacoma) issued a decision today holding the civil discovery rules do not authorize a trial court to compel personal injury plaintiffs to sign stipulations and authorizations allowing the defendant to obtain their medical records. In Sastrawidjaya v. Mughal, Court of Appeals Cause No. 47777-7-II., Copin Sastrawidjaya and Rianne Matheos filed a personal injury lawsuit against Maureen Mughal after they were allegedly injured in an automobile accident resulting from Mughal’s negligence. Sastrawidjaya and Matheos are purportedly a resident of British Columbia. Mughal served discovery requests, which included interrogatories requesting the identities of Sastrawidjaya and Matheos’s medical providers. Sastrawidjaya and Matheos responded with a list of their providers. Mughal’s discovery requests also included requests for production of documents. Sastrawidjaya and Matheos responded that they were producing the records in their possession. Their responses to interrogatories and their later deposition testimony identified additional medical provider’s of which Mughal was unaware. Mughal sent Sastrawidjaya and Matheos requests to sign stipulations and authorizations for the release of their medical records from all of their providers, which attached and incorporated HIPPA compliant authorizations. Sastrawidjaya and Matheos declined to sign the stipulations.

Mughal filed a motion to compel the production of Sastrawidjaya and Matheos’s medical records, claiming they had failed to produce all of their medical records. She also argued that because their records were relevant and discoverable they had no excuse for refusing to sign the stipulations. Sastrawidjaya and Matheos argued that they could not be legally compelled to sign the stipulations and that Mughal could seek the records by other means. The trial court ordered Sastrawidjaya and Matheos to sign the stipulations and authorizations. Sastrawidjaya and Matheos filed a motion for discretionary review, which was granted.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding a request to sign medical records stipulations is not an authorized form of discovery under the civil rules thereby precluding the trial court from compelling Sastrawidjaya and Matheos to sign the stipulations. Looking to the plain language of CR 26(a), the Court noted the rule establishes the only methods to obtain discovery and a mandatory stipulation is not one of the listed methods. CR 26 restricts the trial court’s authority only to limiting the listed methods of discovery, but not to expanding the methods of discovery beyond those listed in the rule. The Court also analyzed CR 34(a)(1), relating to requests for production of documents and noted that nothing in the rule requires a party to stipulate to allow the opposing party to obtain documents independently. Mughal’s only remedy if Sastrawidjaya and Matheos refused to produce all of their medical records was to file a motion to compel production under CR 37(a). If Sastrawidjaya and Matheos refused to obey a court order compelling that discovery, the trial court could impose sanctions. The Court then acknowledged that obtaining medical records without the plaintiff’s stipulation is expensive and inconvenient, especially when the medical providers are in a foreign country. But that efficacy and cost effectiveness did not allow the Court to ignore the court rules. The Court held that the trial court erred in compelling Sastrawidjaya and Matheos to sign the stipulations and authorizations releasing their medical records to Mughal and reversed.

Acting Chief Judge Maxa authored the Court’s opinion and Judges Worswick and Melnick concurred.