Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantattorneydiscoveryappealtrialmotionmalpracticecorporationattorney-client privilege
plaintiffdefendantattorneyappealtrialmalpracticecorporationattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

Gregori v. Bank of America, 207 Cal.App.3d 291, 254 Cal.Rptr. 853, 57 USLW 2481
View Case »
Troice v. Proskauer Rose, L.L.P., 816 F.3d 341
View Case »
Lane v. Sharp Packaging Systems, Inc., 251 Wis.2d 68, 2002 WI 28, 640 N.W.2d 788
View Case »
State v. Berrysmith, 87 Wash.App. 268, 944 P.2d 397
View Case »
H.B.A. Management, Inc. v. Estate of Schwartz By and Through Schwartz, 693 So.2d 541, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S236, 57 A.L.R.5th 855
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wright by Wright v. Group Health Hosp., 103 Wash.2d 192, 691 P.2d 564, 50 A.L.R.4th 641, 53 USLW 2309

Facts

The appeal arose from a medical malpractice action against Group Health Hospital and Dr. Kevin Schaberg, where plaintiffs alleged malpractice during the care of Mrs. Wright. Group Health had a policy instructing its employees not to discuss the case with anyone other than its outside counsel. During discovery, the plaintiffs' attorney sought to interview nurses involved in the case, but Group Health's attorneys claimed this was barred by attorney-client privilege and disciplinary rules. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order, leading to the appeal.

The appeal arose from a medical malpractice action against Group Health Hospital and Dr. Kevin Schaberg, where plaintiffs alleged malpractice during the care of Mrs. Wright.

Issue

Whether a defendant hospital corporation may prohibit its current employees from conducting ex parte interviews with plaintiffs' attorneys in a medical malpractice action.

Whether a defendant hospital corporation may prohibit its current employees from conducting ex parte interviews with plaintiffs' attorneys in a medical malpractice action.

Rule

The attorney-client privilege does not bar an attorney from interviewing employees of a corporation regarding facts related to a malpractice claim, and current employees are considered 'parties' under the disciplinary rule only if they have the authority to bind the corporation.

The attorney-client privilege does not bar an attorney from interviewing employees of a corporation regarding facts related to a malpractice claim, and current employees are considered 'parties' under the disciplinary rule only if they have the authority to bind the corporation.

Analysis

The court analyzed the application of the attorney-client privilege and the disciplinary rule regarding ex parte communications. It determined that the privilege protects communications but not underlying facts, allowing the plaintiffs' attorney to interview employees about facts related to the malpractice claim. The court also clarified that only employees with authority to bind the corporation are considered 'parties' under the disciplinary rule, thus allowing interviews with non-managing employees.

The court analyzed the application of the attorney-client privilege and the disciplinary rule regarding ex parte communications. It determined that the privilege protects communications but not underlying facts, allowing the plaintiffs' attorney to interview employees about facts related to the malpractice claim.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that Group Health's instructions to its employees not to speak with plaintiffs' attorneys were improper. The case was remanded with instructions to revoke these instructions.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that Group Health's instructions to its employees not to speak with plaintiffs' attorneys were improper.

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the attorney-client privilege did not prevent their attorney from interviewing non-managing employees of Group Health.

Plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the attorney-client privilege did not prevent their attorney from interviewing non-managing employees of Group Health.

You must be