What limitations exist, if any, on a defendant’s ability to obtain a plaintiff’s complete medical history, both pre and post incident?

There is no specific limitation on a defendant’s ability to obtain a plaintiff’s medical history pursuant to the Indiana Products Liability Act as codified at Indiana Code §34-20-1-1, et seq. Discovery is permitted on any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the litigation. Ind. R. Civ. P. 26(B)(1). Moreover, discovery requests need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Although Indiana recognizes the physician-patient privilege, the privilege is not absolute. See Ind. Code §34-46-3-1-(2); See also Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 526, 529 (Ind. 199). When a party places their physical condition at issue, that party has impliedly waived the physician-patient privilege to the extent those matters are casually and historically related to the condition put in issue and have direct medical relevance to the claim. See Andreatta v. Hunley, 714 N.E.2d 1154, 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Medical information that is unrelated to the condition at issue remains privileged and protected from discovery. Id. If the physician-patient privilege is invoked, it is on the party asserting the privilege to prove entitlement to the protection of the privilege. Id.

In addition to asserting or defending a claim of privilege, Indiana’s Rule of Civil Procedure 26(B)(1) limits the scope of discovery if a court determines that (1) discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; (2) the party seeking discovery had ample opportunity to obtain the information sought; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See Ind. Civ. P. R. 26(B)(1). Trial courts have broad discretion in ruling on disputes over the scope or method of discovery. See Jacob v. Chaplin, 639 N.E.2d 1010, 1012 (Ind. 1994). Indiana courts of appeal will only interfere with a trial court’s ruling on discovery where an abuse of discretion indicates that the decision goes against the logic and circumstances of the case. See Andreatta, 714 N.E.2d at 1159.