Geraci v. National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp.
Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action against National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation (National Fuel) and the City of Buffalo, its Department of Public Works, Division of Water, and its Sewer Authority (City defendants) to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained by Joseph Geraci
We affirm that part of the order requiring plaintiff to execute the broad medical authorizations demanded by National Fuel and to disclose the names of medical providers who treated other illnesses and conditions of plaintiff. In bringing an action for personal injury, a plaintiff waives the physician/patient privilege with respect to any physical or mental condition affirmatively placed in controversy (see, CPLR 3121 [a]; Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 60 NY2d 452, 456-457; Hoenig v Westphal, 52 NY2d 605, 608-609). The waiver extends not only to records of postaccident treatment, but also to records of preaccident treatment of the same anatomical parts to which plaintiff claims injury (see, Dibble v Consolidated Rail Corp., 181 AD2d 1040). Here, the complaint alleges that plaintiff has suffered injury, pain, emotional upset, confinement to bed and house, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of the accident. Given those broad allegations of injury and disability, we conclude that plaintiff’s entire physical condition has been placed in controversy, especially insofar as plaintiff may have experienced other potentially debilitating medical problems before or since the accident (see, Dibble v Consolidated Rail Corp., supra; cf., Clark v Pople, 244 AD2d 958). Such other medical conditions are relevant to damages (cf., Coddington v Lisk, 249 AD2d 817; Syron v Paolelli, 238 AD2d 710, 710-711; Kenyon v Caruso Dev. Co., 167 AD2d 966, 966-967).
We further conclude that Supreme Court did not err in denying discovery of pre-1990 work records, or in limiting discovery to work records pertaining to areas within a 100-foot radius of the intersection. The court erred, however, in denying discovery of records of subsurface work. Such records are relevant to plaintiffs’ allegation that employees of National Fuel were responsible for the missing manhole cover. Further, the court erred in limiting the scope of discovery against the City
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.