JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTES.
The judicial decisions which are discussed here are those that deal with the privilege secured by the restrictive laws. The analogy between the privilege of a client with regard to his attorney’s disclosures, and that of a patient with regard to the testimony of his physician, is not so complete as to make it essential to present here, for the sake of their bearing upon the subject now under consideration, a study of the principles to be deduced from the numerous decisions with reference to attorneys as witnesses. The analogous cases of clergymen and priests are also beyond the scope of this treatment.
Rules of Construction.—The restrictions are in derogation of the common law[228] and in accordance with the rule of interpretation ordinarily adopted should be strictly construed,[229] but the courts have generally looked at the policy of the enactments, and have construed them so as to preserve inviolably the confidence existing between physician and patient, without narrowing their effect to a strict interpretation of their language.
In Indiana, under a former law which protected matters confided, it was said that the statute should be given a broader scope than the word confided in a strict sense imports, so as to cover matters learned by observation and examination.[230] But, though the statute in terms absolutely prohibits a disclosure, it has been said, in Indiana, that it gives no right to the physician to refuse to testify where the patient waives the privilege,[231] and that it creates no absolute incompetency, because to hold otherwise would result in obstructing justice without subserving the purpose of the statute.[232] In Missouri, there is a dictum that the privilege should be carefully limited to what the statute requires, not so much because it is in derogation of the common law as because it is in exclusion of the best evidence, on the ground of privilege;[233] but in this very case, the real question was whether the word oral should be construed into the statute so as to exclude from its protection information acquired by inspection and observation, and it was held that no such narrow interpretation was proper. In a later case the narrowing dicta of the foregoing opinion were disapproved,[234] and subsequently the disposition to make a liberal construction was shown by the highest court of the State, although a general rule of interpretation was not announced.[235] In New York, the rule that a statute in derogation of the common law is strictly construed does not apply to the Code of Civil Procedure.[236] But before the enactment of this statutory rule[237] there was a tendency to interpret liberally the law prohibiting disclosures.[238] In Arkansas the tendency seems to be to construe the law strictly.[239] The spirit of interpretation will be more fully illustrated in the discussion of particular cases which follows.
In New York it was claimed that the protection afforded by the statute is nullified by the provision for the examination of a party before trial,[240] but it was held that the statutes are consistent and the physician cannot be made to disclose, though his patient may be.[241]
Classes of Actions.
Criminal Actions and Evidence of Crime in Civil Actions.—The statutes confining the restriction to civil actions have been cited above.[242] In Iowa, in an action for breach of promise to marry, it was said that the privilege does not extend to the protection of advice for the commission of a crime.[243] In New York the rule was at first embodied in the Revised Statutes of the State,[244] but upon the adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure it was included therein,[245] and subsequently the provision of the Revised Statutes was repealed.[246] In that State by law the rules of evidence in civil cases are applicable also to criminal cases, except as otherwise expressly provided;[247] and the statutes provide no different rule in criminal actions as to this class of evidence. Notwithstanding this fact, however, it has been said by the Court of Appeals, in a case where there was an attempt to screen a murderer by insisting that his victim’s physician was not a competent witness as to information acquired by him while attending his patient,[248] that the design of the law was to enable the patient to make known his condition to his physician without the danger of disclosing what would annoy his feelings, damage his character, or impair his standing while living, or disgrace his memory when dead, but that it was not intended to protect a murderer rather than to shield his victim; and quoting from the opinion of Talcott, J., in the court below,[249] the Court said: “The purpose for which the aid of the statute is invoked is so utterly foreign to the purpose and object of the act and so diametrically opposed to any intent which the legislature can be supposed to have had in enacting it, so contrary to and inconsistent with its spirit, which most clearly intended to protect the patient and not to shield one who is charged with his murder; that in such a case the statute is not to be so construed as to be used as a weapon of defence to a party so charged instead of a protection to his victim.” Accordingly it was held that the evidence was not to be excluded under the statute. But the rule is still applicable to criminal actions. In a later case, where the accused was indicted for abortion, the same court held, that where the patient was living and the disclosure tended to convict her too of crime or to cast discredit and disgrace upon her, the evidence of her physician as to information acquired by him in attendance upon her was inadmissible in the trial of the man charged with the crime.[250] In a still later case,[251] the General Term of the Supreme Court held, where the accused was on trial for murder and he had confided to a physician what he had done, that the physician could not disclose the confidence. The rule deducible from these decisions seems to be that in New York the privilege extends to criminal actions, even though they be trials for murder, and even though the person accused be the patient, but that the statute will be applied only for the protection of the patient, and where it is apparent that no injury can possibly be done to the patient or his memory by the admission of the evidence, and the interests of justice demand the disclosure, for the punishment of a person for an injury done to the patient involving a violation of the criminal law, and the patient is not alive to waive the privilege, that the disclosure is not forbidden.
In New York efforts have been made to exclude from the operation of the statute other classes of actions, to which it has been urged that the reasons for the enactment do not apply, or in which the mischief alleged to be wrought by its enforcement has been suggested as ground for believing that the legislature could not have intended to include them. Of these, actions for divorce on the ground of adultery are one class; but it has been held that they constitute no exception.[252]
Testamentary Causes.—In New York it was long supposed that the policy of the law excepted probate proceedings; it was so held by the Surrogate of New York City;[253] and also by the General Term of the Supreme Court,[254] by which it was stated that the practice had prevailed for a half-century in will cases,[255] but the Court of Appeals,[256] has decided that testamentary cases constitute no exception to the rule, the judge who delivered the opinion stating that there is no more reason for allowing secret ailments of a patient to be brought to light in a contest over his will than in any other case, and that if mischief be wrought by the law the remedy lies with the legislature and not with the courts. The legislature has since afforded the remedy,[257] but not to the extent of adopting the rule of the earlier cases. In Indiana, in an action to set aside a will, the testimony of the testator’s physician has been excluded.[258] And in Michigan and Missouri it seems that testamentary cases are no exception to the general rule.[259]
Lunacy and Habitual Drunkenness.—It has been claimed in New York that inquisitions of lunacy are an exception, and recently it has been held that the alleged lunatic’s physician may testify as to his mental condition because no one is better qualified to testify,[260] but this decision seems to be at variance with the principle of the decisions of the Court of Appeals with reference to testamentary cases, and presents no satisfactory reason for a distinction. In a similar case in the Supreme Court, Chambers, it was held that a medical attendant at an asylum could not testify.[261] It has also been held that a physician cannot make an affidavit as to the appearance and condition of his patient to support a petition for the appointment of a committee for him as an habitual drunkard.[262]
Fraud.—Still another class of actions in which contending principles have been invoked to make an exception in the law of privilege, is actions on life-insurance contracts. The contract of insurance is uberrimæ fidei, and the defence of fraud in the application is frequently interposed to defeat a claim under a policy. Medical testimony would often be the most satisfactory evidence to establish the fraud, and efforts have been made to introduce it under that excuse, but without avail. In the case of Dilleber vs. Home Life Insurance Company, in the Supreme Court of New York at General Term,[263] the question seems to have been directly before the court, and Davis, P. J., dissenting, insisted that the suppression of a physician’s testimony ought not to be permitted so as to cover up a fraud, but the majority of the court held otherwise; the case was subsequently overruled, but not on the ground urged by Justice Davis.[264] The number of insurance cases in which the rule has been enforced seems to leave it beyond question that it will not be relaxed for the purpose of establishing fraud,[265] although that announcement has not been specifically made. There seems no reason that the rule should be relaxed in that regard when it is not relaxed to establish the crime of the patient; though the mischief that may be done in such cases is apparent.[266]
The Witness.—The statutory provisions as to the professional status of the witness whose testimony is excluded have already been shown.[267] The facts which establish the relation of physician and patient will be treated later.[268] The witness is a member of a profession, but there is very little discussion in the cases as to what constitutes a physician or surgeon.[269] The language of the statutes as well as their policy and intent has been said to plainly embrace a physician who casually or in any way attends and prescribes for a patient, whether he be a family physician or the usual medical attendant or not.[270] The spirit of the acts would protect communications made to any person attending the patient in the accepted capacity of physician or surgeon wherever that might have happened, though the letter would confine it in some instances to duly authorized or duly licensed persons. It does not seem to have been established whether such authority or license must have been granted under the laws of the State where the trial is conducted, nor how the several statutes apply to communications made elsewhere, especially in States or countries where authority or license to practise is not required by law.
It has been said with reference to the New York law that it is absolutely necessary that the witness should be a duly qualified physician;[271] and it has been held that the words “duly authorized” mean those persons who are not prohibited by the penal code from practising, so that an unlicensed physician may be compelled to disclose confidential communications.[272] Whether the same rule would be applied with reference to information obtained in another State by a physician duly authorized to practise there although prohibited from practising in New York, is a question that is suggested as a case within the reason of the law but outside of its letter, and one which does not seem to have been answered.
In New York, in an action by a physician for compensation for his services, it was held that a person who merely answered for a physician at his office in his absence, and was not himself a physician, is not a witness whose testimony is privileged.[273]
In Missouri it has been held that a drug and prescription clerk is not a privileged witness.[274] The question arose in the same State, whether a dental surgeon is forbidden to testify under the statute, but its determination was not essential to the judgment and it was left unanswered.[275]
To establish the privilege it is necessary that the person who insists upon it to exclude testimony should show by competent evidence that the witness belongs to the class privileged under the law.[276] But where the physician testified that he was a regular practising physician and attended in that capacity, and he was not examined further as to his due authority, it was held that a failure to produce his license could not be urged on appeal as reason for compelling him to testify.[277] The Court said that if the privilege were the physician’s he might, if the objection were taken, be required to prove by the best evidence that he was duly authorized, but as it is the patient’s privilege, in the absence of objection to the sufficiency of the proof, the patient is entitled to the benefit of the presumption that the physician had the license which the law requires to entitle him to practise.
Waiver of the Privilege.
Who may Waive.—Those States in which the law provides for a waiver have been enumerated;[278] in others the courts have determined that the privilege of waiving is implied in the reason for the law. In Indiana it has been held that although the statute contains in terms an absolute prohibition, it creates no absolute incompetency and the privilege may be waived by the person for whose benefit it is made or his legal representative.[279] Under the Michigan law it was claimed that the physician is forbidden to reveal confidences even though he have his patient’s consent, but it has been held that the law only creates a privilege on the same footing with other privileged communications, which the public has no interest in suppressing when there is no desire for suppression on the part of the person concerned.[280] In Missouri too the patient may waive the privilege.[281]
The protection vouchsafed by the law is designed for the benefit of the patient, and therefore the physician himself cannot waive it.[282] The patient can disclose his own physical condition if he so desires.[283]
But the physician cannot refuse to testify if the patient waives the privilege.[284]
The patient can waive the privilege during his life.[285]
As it existed prior to 1891 the New York law provided that the prohibition should operate unless it was expressly waived upon the trial or examination by the patient.[286] This was interpreted to mean that the patient himself was the only person who could make a waiver; and that, therefore, the possibility of waiver ceased with the death of the patient, while the privilege of secrecy continued unabated, so that those claiming under the deceased patient could not waive the privilege, nor insist upon the testimony of the physician, even though their interests were in jeopardy on account of his silence.[287] It seems, however, that a patient can during his lifetime waive the privilege, the waiver to take effect after his death.[288] The express waiver required by the statute may be given by the patient’s attorney, because of the nature of the attorney’s agency in conducting an action for the patient.[289]
None of the other statutes are in the exact terms of the New York statute, but those of California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming provide that the testimony shall not be given unless the patient consent; in Iowa, the waiver provided for is that of the person in whose favor the prohibition is made; and in Nebraska, of the party in whose favor the provision is enacted.
In Indiana, the privilege extends beyond the death of the patient, and it may be waived by the party who may be said to stand in the place of the deceased and whose interests may be affected by the disclosure.[290]
In Michigan, what the patient may do in his lifetime, those who represent him after his death may also do for the protection of the interests which they claim under him.[291] In Missouri the representatives of the patient may waive;[292] and where the dispute is between devisees and heirs at law all claiming under a deceased patient, either the devisees or heirs may call the attending physician of the testator as a witness regarding information acquired by him in his professional attendance.[293] In Nevada it has been said that the parents of a seven-year-old infant, may waive for the infant.[294]
Objections to the Admission of Privileged Communications; When and by Whom Made.—Having considered who can waive the privilege, it is material to discuss also the question who may insist upon the enforcement of the law. If the protection were only enforced on the claim of privilege by the patient, the very object of the statutes would be defeated in the large majority of instances because of the absence of the patient and every one interested in his behalf to assert his right. It rests, therefore, with any party to raise the objection and assert the prohibition. But it seems that the physician himself, unless a party, cannot make the objection.[295] It seems to have been thought in some of the cases that the right to insist upon the enforcement of the law is coupled with an interest derived from the patient. This idea started from the language used in the early cases enforcing the privilege at the instance of those claiming under deceased patients;[296] and it led to some confusion where the right of representatives to waive the privilege was denied; but it seems to be clear that the right to object differs from the right to waive in that the latter is necessarily and logically dependent upon the relation between the patient and his representative, while the former is obviously suggested as the best method of enforcing the law. In Indiana it has been said that the statute gives to the representative of a deceased patient the right to object;[297] but that this is not by reason of the relationship appears from another case in the same State, where on an application for a new trial the Court voluntarily refused to grant one for newly discovered evidence disclosed to it by a physician’s affidavit, on the ground that if the patient should object in the new trial the evidence would be excluded.[298] In this State it has been held that the widow of the patient cannot object to the disclosure, if his administrator with the will annexed waives the privilege.[299]
In Michigan it has been said that the physician cannot avail himself of the statute for his own benefit; but that was in a case where the communication was not really of the privileged class.[300] In New York, in proceedings to which a physician was a party an examination of his books of account before trial has been refused on the ground of privilege, and for the same reason a motion to direct a physician to turn his books of account over to a receiver has been denied.[301]
In Montana it has been said that when the patient consents no one else can object to the reception of the physician’s testimony.[302]
In New York it has been said that the benefits of the law are to be dispensed alike to those familiar with and those ignorant of its existence and applicability, and it is therefore no reason to refuse its enforcement, that the patient did not know that his communication was privileged.[303]
But, as in other cases of the receipt of improper evidence, it would seem that the objection should be made at the time it is offered, and if the objection is not then made, it will not avail to raise it later or on appeal.[304] It should not be prematurely made.[305] In New York where in pursuance of a special feature of practice in probate proceedings,[306] certain witnesses are regarded as the surrogate’s witnesses though produced at the instance of the contestant, and the contestant, after giving notice that the evidence of physicians as such witnesses was material, refused to examine them, and the surrogate required the proponent to suggest a line of examination, it was held that it did not lie with the contestant to object to the physicians’ testimony as privileged, because she had lost her right to object by giving notice that the evidence of those witnesses on these points was material.[307]
Objection cannot be raised in the progress of an examination after the forbidden testimony has been in part received without objection; for that would unjustly enable a party to open the door and get in all he desired and then to close it to the disadvantage of his adversary; when the door is once properly opened the examination may be continued until it is complete, despite the objection of the party at whose instance it was begun.[308]
In Indiana, where there was no objection, it was held that the evidence should not be withdrawn from the consideration of the jury or its weight diminished by comments on its value as matter of law.[309]
But when such evidence has already been admitted in the face of objection, it is not necessary for the party to object again, as nothing is waived by conforming with a rule already laid down.[310] Where it is apparent that no harm is done to the objecting party by an improper ruling on the receipt of privileged communications, no weight will be given to an exception to such ruling.[311]
What Constitutes a Waiver of the Privilege.—The statutory provisions as to what constitutes a waiver have been set forth above.[312] In California it has been held that cross-examination of the physician by the patient, calling for privileged matter, is a waiver of privilege.[313] In Indiana it has been held that consent to disclosure cannot be inferred from the patient’s simply giving the name of his family physician in applying for a policy of insurance on his life, and that a waiver in such an application should be evidenced by a stipulation too plain to be misunderstood.[314] And a physician’s statements of the cause of his patient’s death, furnished to an insurance company, in pursuance of a stipulation of a policy that satisfactory proof of death shall be submitted to the company, are not rendered admissible by that stipulation.[315]
It has also been held that consent to the evidence of one physician is no consent that another physician may divulge confidential communications;[316] and that the physician cannot testify that he found no evidence of injury on the examination of his patient, in order to contradict her;[317] the patient had already testified as to her condition and what the physician had done, but not as to anything said to her by her physician; she had expressly declined to testify concerning communications except as to his prescription for her injury, and without asking him to disprove her assertions the trial Court permitted him to say that he had found no evidence of injury; this was held to be error. It has also been held that the taking of a physician’s deposition and filing it, for the purpose of breaking the force of his testimony in a deposition taken by the opposite party, is no consent in itself to the reading of the other party’s deposition.[318] But when, in an action against a physician for malpractice, the patient testifies as to the manner of treatment, the physician is then at liberty to introduce the testimony of himself or another physician as to the facts thus put in issue by the patient.[319]
In Iowa it has been held that the testimony of a patient regarding the condition of his health is not a waiver of privilege, so as to allow his opponent to introduce the testimony of his physician to contradict him.[320]
In Michigan a physician has been allowed to contradict his patient as to the time when her trouble commenced, but on the ground that it had not been shown that the information was necessary to enable him to prescribe.[321] But it has been held that waiver as to one physician is not waiver as to another regarding a different time.[322]
In Missouri, the calling of a physician by the patient as a witness to testify as to information acquired while attending, is a waiver.[323] But offering one physician as a witness is not a waiver of the privilege with reference to another.[324] An applicant for insurance may, by an express waiver in his application, make an efficient waiver, binding upon any one claiming under the contract of insurance.[325]
In Nevada a waiver has been implied from the testimony of the patient and her mother, where the patient was an infant seven years of age.[326] And it was said that the parents of such an infant may make the waiver.
In New York it has been held that reference to a family physician when answering questions on an application for insurance, is not a waiver;[327] nor is the presence of a third person, in aid of the patient;[328] nor is the bringing of an action for damages for an injury;[329] nor is the examination of the physician in a former trial by the opposing party;[330] but where the ban of secrecy is once removed in an action and the information once lawfully made public, at the instance of the patient, it cannot be restored, and the disclosure may then be compelled in any subsequent action;[331] it would seem, too, that a physician who becomes a witness to his patient’s last will and testament at the patient’s request is then subject to a thorough examination on all points involving the patient’s testamentary capacity.[332]
Where the patient testified herself and called an attending physician to prove her physical condition, this was not a consent to the examination of another attending physician, and it was said that the opposite party by tactics on cross-examination could not compel the patient to abandon a privilege which she refused to waive.[333] Fish, J., in delivering the opinion of the Court in the last-mentioned case, said of the operation of the statute, that it allows the patient to use the testimony of the attending physician if he thinks his evidence will benefit his case, and to object and exclude it in case he thinks it will not benefit him; he may call to his aid the testimony of any one whose views he approves and exclude that of another whose testimony might tend to controvert that given with the consent of the patient; that in this case the excluded witness was the best witness and could tell nothing else than the patient had disclosed if she had told the truth and it would relate solely to what she and the other physician had described, but that the Court could not consider whether the statute tended to promote the cause of justice, and he distinguished McKinney v. Grand Street Railroad Company,[334] on the ground that there the consent had been that the same physician should disclose what he knew, while here the waiver of the excluded physician’s testimony had been constantly withheld.
A decision which seems to be at variance with Record v. Village of Saratoga Springs is Treanor v. Manhattan Railway Company,[335] where it was said that the patient cannot promulgate and uncover his maladies and infirmities in court and keep his physician under obligations to silence, and that he cannot, to mulct another in damages, inflame a jury with a false or exaggerated story of his injuries and sufferings and preclude the physician from making a truthful statement of the case.
But where the patient testifies as to what passed between him and his physician, the physician may testify on the same subject, as a waiver is inferred from the circumstances; for the reason, that the patient, having gone into the privileged domain to get evidence on his own behalf, cannot prevent the other party from assailing such evidence by the only testimony available, and the rule is no longer applicable when the patient himself pretends to give the circumstances of the privileged interview.[336] The requirement that a physician file with a board of health a certificate of the cause of death does not abrogate the privilege in a judicial proceeding.[337]
The Evidence Excluded.
“Information.”—In Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin the privileged matter is characterized as information.[338]
In Arkansas it seems that the information must be a confidential communication;[339] but in the other States where it has been necessary to construe the word it has received a broader interpretation.
In Michigan information is not confined to confidential communications made by the patient, but includes whatever in order to enable a physician to prescribe was disclosed to any of his senses and which in any way was brought to his knowledge for that purpose;[340] it covers a letter written to a physician,[341] and matters observed by him;[342] but it does not include information acquired by a third person; for instance, the time when a physician saw his patient may be disclosed by her mother;[343] and the fact of treatment or non-treatment is not information;[344] nor are the facts that the physician was the patient’s family physician, and that he attended him professionally; nor are statements of the dates of such attendance and the number of such visits;[345] nor the facts that the physician has been called upon to examine and prescribe for a person and that his patient had told him that she would want him to testify for her in a lawsuit.[346]
In Missouri the statute protects information received from the patient; but this is not confined to oral communications, and includes knowledge gained by inspection of the patient’s person.[347] In Lunz v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company protection was said not to extend to information of this sort apparent on casual inspection, which any one might make, nor to symptoms which are obvious before the patient submits himself to any examination, such as an inflamed face, a bloodshot eye, alcoholic fumes, or delirium; nor to facts so superficial that in regard to them no confidence could have been reposed. But this distinction between hidden and patent facts is disapproved in Kling v. City of Kansas,[348] and the statement is made that the law does not rest on the confidence imposed. Knowledge or communications concerning the cause of a patient’s condition and the extent of his injuries have also been held to be included in the term information, because the disclosure of these matters involved the indirect disclosure of the condition;[349] but it was said that the physician may testify as to knowledge acquired independent of communications from the patient and of examination or inspection made by the witness for the purpose of treatment.[350] As divulging privileged information, a physician has not been allowed to answer what his patient’s hurts were, why he left a hospital, or whether he required longer treatment;[351] and it has also been held that a physician cannot give his opinion as to the mental condition of his patient based upon privileged knowledge.[352]
In New York information comprehends all knowledge acquired by the physician by communication, observation, or inspection;[353] it has been said to extend to all facts which necessarily come to the knowledge of the physician in a given professional case;[354] and it includes as well the opinion of the physician based upon his knowledge as the knowledge itself.[355]
The physician cannot disclose the nature of his patient’s disease, whether he learned it by observation or examination or from what his patient told him;[356] nor can he testify as to what he told his patient.[357] In Edington v. Ætna Life insurance Company[358] it was said by Judge Earl that the statute was aimed at confidential communications and secret ailments, and that it did not extend to matters superficially apparent, such as a fever, a fractured leg or skull, or raving mania apparent to all;[359] but this view was disapproved expressly in the later case of Renihan v. Dennin.[360]
The privileged information has been said to include knowledge acquired through the statements of others surrounding the patient.[361] But it would seem that the fact that a third person was present during a physician’s visit may be shown by the physician, as well as what passed between the patient and the third person, if it was such information as a layman would have gathered.[362] The information from the third person regarding the patient is protected even though the patient be absent;[363] but not if the third person does not employ the physician, and the information thus acquired is not necessary to enable the physician to act in a professional capacity.[364] It is suggested in one case, but not determined, that it would be improper for a physician to state the value of the services of a nurse in attendance upon his patient, as that would involve a consideration of the condition of his patient;[365] but it has been held that a physician can testify to the fact of a nurse’s services.[366]
But it is information regarding the patient that is privileged, and therefore a physician may disclose what his patient told him about another, even though the subject of inquiry be the attitude of the patient toward the other;[367] and likewise the physician may disclose what he told his patient about a third person;[368] so also the physician may testify as to family events in no way connected with physical complaints.[369] It has been held, too, that admissions made by a patient to his physician, tending to show contributory negligence on the part of the patient, at a time when the communication could not well have been made to enable the physician to prescribe, namely, on the physician’s third and last visit, may be proven by the physician.[370]
The physician may properly testify that he did attend as physician,[371] and that the patient was sick, and he can state when and how often he attended him,[372] and whether his knowledge was acquired while in professional attendance,[373] but it is open to the Court to determine from the evidence whether it was so acquired.[374]
“Matter Committed.”—In Indiana the protection covers matter committed. It would seem that the use of the word committed implies confidence and that the protected matter is only confidential communications; but an earlier statute in that State applied to “matters confided,” and it was held to cover matters learned by observation or examination, or by communication from the patient, whether learned under an injunction of secrecy, express or implied, or not;[375] and it has been held that the present law forbids the disclosure of matters learned in a sick-room, no matter how the knowledge may have been acquired.[376]
“Confidential Communications.”—The laws of Iowa and Nebraska protect confidential communications properly intrusted. The construction put upon the word confided in Indiana has been shown. In Iowa it has been said that a confidential inquiry for advice to facilitate the commission of a crime or the infraction of law, is not properly intrusted and is not privileged;[377] but where the advice is sought for a purpose which may or may not be lawful, the presumption is that it is lawful, and the communication is privileged.[378] It has been said that whether or not a physician treated a person for a particular disease, is not a confidential communication.[379]
The word confidential is not narrowly construed, for a physician has been prevented from disclosing whether his patient said that a car was in motion when he was injured, because the injury would be more severe if in motion;[380] and the fact that the physician’s partner was present does not remove the seal of secrecy, or permit the partner to testify.[381]
“Communications.”—In Ohio and Wyoming communications are privileged; and in Kansas and Oklahoma communications with reference to a physical or supposed physical disease and any knowledge obtained by a personal examination of a patient. It does not appear whether a narrower construction would be given to the term communications than to the term information; but it would seem not, if a person deprived of speech is to be protected,[382] or if the term communications is not to be construed as meaning oral communications.
“From the Patient; by the Patient.”—The former qualifying terms are used in the statutes of Arkansas, Indian Territory, and Missouri; the latter in the statutes of Kansas and Oklahoma. The liberal interpretation put upon this term in the Missouri law has already been shown.[383] The law of the Indian Territory is adopted from Arkansas.[384] The statute is strictly construed in Arkansas,[385] but this term does not seem to have received interpretation.
“Advice.”—The laws of Indiana, Ohio, and Wyoming expressly cover the physician’s advice. In New York it is incompetent for the physician to disclose what he told his patient;[386] but advice to a patient concerning a third person is not privileged.[387]
The Relation of Physician and Patient.—Under each of the statutes, the relation of physician and patient must have existed at the time the information was acquired. In those cases where the relation is established by contract and is recognized by both physician and patient as existing, no difficulty arises in determining that it does exist. It is in those cases where some one of these elements is lacking that the difficulties are met. In California it has been held that the relation exists where a physician attends and prescribes for a person, notwithstanding he was employed by another, who seeks to disclose the evidence.[388] In Michigan, where the physician was employed by direction of the prosecuting attorney to examine the defendant in jail, and so notified the defendant at the outset of the examination, and he submitted voluntarily to a personal examination, and there was no intention to prescribe or to act as the defendant’s physician, it was held that the relation did not exist, and that the physician could testify as to the defendant’s physical condition.[389]
In one New York case it has been said that the relation is one of contract, and that the test is whether the physician would be chargeable with malpractice or negligence for failure to advise or prescribe in case the alleged patient were in urgent need of it at the time.[390] But the decisions of the Court of Appeals extend the privilege to cases where this test would lead to a different conclusion.[391]
Where the physician to a county jail was called in to attend a prisoner and examined him, though there was no prescription at the time, but it appeared that the doctor told the prisoner what he should prescribe, and subsequently two physicians came to see the prisoner at the instance of the coroner and examined him as they would have examined one of their patients, though they did not prescribe and had no conversation about a prescription, it was held that the prisoner had, under the circumstances, reason to suppose that the relation of physician and patient did exist between him and all three of the physicians, and that their testimony as to what they learned on such visits should have been excluded; and the rule is thus stated: whenever the patient has reason to suppose that the relation exists and does in fact and truth so suppose, in a case where the physician attends under circumstances calculated to induce the opinion that his visit is of a professional nature, and the visit is so regarded and acted upon by the person attended, the relation of physician and patient contemplated by the statute may fairly be said to exist.[392]
But the fact that it is the duty of a physician to prescribe for a person in case of need, does not constitute the relation, though the position of the physician gives him the opportunity to observe such person; so, therefore, a jail physician was not precluded from testifying as to what he had observed of a prisoner, where it did not appear that he had ever attended the latter in a professional capacity or had ever been called on to attend him.[393]
It would seem, however, that where it is the duty of a physician to attend a person in a professional capacity or to acquire knowledge concerning him in such capacity, he cannot disclose information actually acquired in the performance of his duty. It has been said that a medical attendant at an insane asylum cannot testify as to the mental condition of an inmate;[394] and that a physician employed in a hospital to notice and enter in its records the arrival and condition of the patients coming in, cannot testify as to information so acquired.[395]
It is immaterial that another person employs the physician to examine the patient, and to report to the employer, and that the person examined does not appear to desire any knowledge as to his condition; if the examination is made as a professional act, the relation of physician and patient is established between the physician and the person examined, even though it be the only interview.[396]
And in a case where the public prosecutor sent a physician to a person for the purpose of making a professional examination, so as to obtain evidence against another person charged with crime, and the person examined accepted the services of the physician in a professional character, it was held that he could not testify as to the results of his examination.[397]
But where the district attorney sent a physician to jail to make an examination of a prisoner’s mental and physical condition, and he made such examination, and it did not appear that he prescribed for or treated the prisoner or that the prisoner accepted his services, the opinion of the physician as to his mental condition was admitted.[398]
Where the defendant employed a physician to examine the plaintiff, and he went as coming from the defendant for that purpose, and examined the plaintiff in the presence of his attending physician, but not as the plaintiff’s physician and not for the purpose of prescribing, the relation of physician and patient was not established.[399] Where a physician examined the plaintiff at the instance of the plaintiff’s physician, but it was not shown that he was requested or expected to treat or prescribe or to advise in respect to either, or that he did either, it was held that the relation was not established;[400] but a physician consulted by the patient’s regular physician for the purpose of advice concerning his treatment is a physician contemplated by the statute;[401] as is also the partner of a physician who is present during a conference with the patient or who overhears such a conference.[402] Attendance at the patient’s house is not contemplated as essential by the law, and it makes no difference where the examination is conducted.[403] But where the physician was also a county clerk and the alleged patient was an attorney, and the consultation took place in the clerk’s office and consisted of an examination of an eruption on the skin, which was made gratuitously and without a prescription being made or asked for, the relation was held not to have been established, notwithstanding that the clerk made use of his knowledge and learning as a physician in forming his opinion, and that it was in confidence that he possessed medical skill that the person requested the examination.[404]
It does not follow that the relation once established continues always; the secrecy growing out of the relationship, as to knowledge then acquired, always continues unless properly waived; and the physician will not be allowed to testify in regard to matter which is partly the result of such information, though another part may have been acquired independent of the relation;[405] but where it is clear that the matter desired is independent of the relation of physician and patient, such evidence is admissible if otherwise competent.[406]
“Professional Capacity.”—The States in which the statutes limit the privilege to information acquired in a professional capacity have been enumerated.[407] As to what constitutes a professional capacity, the discussion of the facts that establish the relation of physician and patient, and of the information necessary to enable a physician to prescribe or a surgeon to act, makes it unnecessary to discuss at length the meaning of this phrase. The decision in Lunz v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company[408] would make it appear that in Missouri information apparent on a casual inspection which any one might make is not received in a professional capacity, but this idea is disapproved in the later case of Kling v. City of Kansas.[409] Information acquired by the physician by observing the patient on the street anterior to his employment as a physician is not received by him in a professional capacity.[410]
In New York, where the physician had not seen the patient before or since his interview for the purpose of treatment, and he was asked what his opinion was, based on a general sight of the man before the examination, it was held that the physician could not properly answer, as all the information upon which the opinion would be based must have been acquired in a professional capacity;[411] but in another case a physician was permitted to express his opinion as to the mental condition of a patient whom he had seen at various times when not in attendance, excluding from his mind any knowledge or information obtained while acting as her medical attendant and confining his answer to such knowledge and information as he had obtained by seeing her when not his patient.[412] It has been said that where information is not such as is obtained on sight by any person, but by removing clothing and by percussion and listening to the action of the lungs, these are professional acts and the information may be considered as obtained professionally.[413] It has been said that information received in a professional capacity involves a decision, though it may be negative; and that signing as witness to a will is not a professional act.[414]
Matter Necessary to Enable a Physician to Prescribe or a Surgeon to Act.—A list of those States whose laws limit the privilege to matter necessary to enable the witness to prescribe or act for the patient is to be found in another place.[415]
In Arkansas, where six hours after delivery, the patient stated to her physician who attended at accouchement, that she had never been engaged to marry and never had promised to marry, the statements were held not to be necessary to enable the physician to act.[416]
In Iowa, a physician who had treated a patient for injuries was not allowed to testify whether his patient told him that the car on which he was injured was in motion at the time, because as the injury would be likely to be more severe if the car was in motion, that information was necessary to enable the physician to prescribe.[417]
In Michigan, a physician was allowed to contradict his patient as to when her trouble commenced, in the absence of evidence that such information was necessary to enable him to act.[418] Where a physician was asked whether he treated a person for typhoid fever, and he answered that she was not so diseased, it was held that this information was not necessary to enable him to act.[419] And the same was held to be true where a physician examined a prisoner at the jail and testified that he was diseased, the prisoner having been notified at the time of the examination that it was made by direction of the prosecuting attorney and there being no intention to prescribe or act for the prisoner.[420] But it has been stated that all disclosures by a patient to a physician respecting ailments are privileged whether necessary to enable the physician to prescribe or not.[421]
In Minnesota, a physician was allowed to disclose statements as to suffering made by his patient, but not for the purpose of enabling him to prescribe or act.[422]
In Missouri, it has been said that information as to the way in which an injury was inflicted is of the greatest necessity for successful treatment; and that it is information which physicians universally demand and receive.[423] In another case, with reference to the cause of a patient’s condition, it was said that while knowledge of the cause may not be necessary, the disclosure of the cause cannot be made without a disclosure of the condition, and that as a medical person cannot tell indirectly what he is forbidden to tell directly, the physician’s evidence of the cause is inadmissible.[424] In another case it was said that any information, necessarily coming to a physician in order to treat his patient, is to be regarded as necessary information though unimportant, and that the test is how it was acquired, not whether it could have been acquired in a different way, and therefore it was incompetent for a physician to testify that his patient was drunk when he treated him.[425]
In New York, in an early case,[426] where a man consulted a physician with reference to committing an abortion and told him that a certain woman was pregnant by him, this admission was said not to be essential to enable him to prescribe, even if the relation of physician and patient were considered established; but this seems to be at variance with the later case of People v. Brower,[427] where the accused consulted a physician with reference to the treatment of a woman on whom he had attempted to commit an abortion, and admitted that he had done so, and the physician was not permitted to disclose it. A broader view is now taken of the word necessary. It has been held by the Court of Appeals that a physician could not testify that his patient had a venereal disease while under his care as a physician, the presumption being that he learned it for the purpose of prescribing;[428] and again, that it is assumed from the relationship that the information would not have been imparted except for the purpose of aiding the physician to prescribe.[429] But this presumption does not attach to information regarding a patient, communicated by a third person.[430]
Where a person went to a physician to call for medicine, and it appeared that he was not consulting for himself and was not representing any one else who needed or desired medical assistance, the physician was allowed to testify as to a conversation which took place at that time.[431]
In the case of Edington v. Ætna Life Insurance Company,[432] it was said that before the exclusion, the facts on which it is justified must appear in some way, and the Court must know somewhat of the circumstances; from the opinion it is easy to infer that it is only confidential communications and information as to secret ailments which may be regarded as necessary within the statute; but this view was overruled in Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,[433] and there it was distinctly stated that it is enough that the witness acquired the information in his character as physician and in the due and proper exercise of his calling, and that it is not incumbent on the person objecting, to show by formal proof that the information was necessary to enable the witness to prescribe. In this case the examination of the witness was as to the cause of his patient’s death, and the argument urged upon the attention of the Court was that information regarding the cause of death could not be necessary to enable the physician to prescribe, as the utility of the prescription ceased with the death and before the cause was determined; but the Court held that the privilege attached, because, although the death was the result of the cause, the facts constituting the cause were learned while the physician was attending the living patient in a professional capacity and from the symptoms manifested at that time.
In consonance with the decision in Grattan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,[434] it has been held that a physician who amputated a patient’s leg could not testify as to its condition at the time it was amputated.[435]
The fact that the physician does not prescribe does not defeat the privilege; if the information is acquired in the course of professional employment the statute operates, for the decision that neither advice nor medicine is needed is a professional act within the spirit of the law.[436] Medicus optimus, medicamentum minimum, is the maxim used in another case to illustrate this point.[437]
But it cannot be predicated as matter of law that a physician cannot exclude from his consideration facts learned or opinions formed while attending as physician; therefore he can testify as to his opinion on hypothetical facts which might be deemed to relate to another person as well as the patient; and where the physician testified that he could so form an opinion, his opinion of such assumptions was held to be admissible in evidence as expert testimony.[438]
But it is not all information which will be presumed to have been necessary to enable the physician to act; it seems that where the knowledge is such that it is evidently immaterial to the physician’s decision, it will be admitted. Such a case is that of Hoyt v. Hoyt,[439] where the testimony of physicians was admitted to show the attitude of their patient toward his daughter and their advice to him concerning her, the evidence being for the purpose of showing the testator’s opinion and not the physicians’. It has also been held that a statement made by a patient on the physician’s last visit as to what occurred at the time the patient was injured, tending to show contributory negligence, was not necessary information.[440] And a physician’s evidence of the declaration of his patient as to making a will and the doctor’s advice on that subject have been admitted.[441]