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

The only limitation to a defendant’s discovery of a plaintiff’s complete medical history is included in K.S.A. § 60-226(b)(1). Discovery may be obtained by a defendant in any civil case for any purpose subject to the limitations as follows:

[R]egarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

K.S.A.§ 60-226(b)(1). Information within the scope of discovery in Kansas need not even be admissible in evidence ultimately to be discoverable. Id.

Privilege Applicable to the Discovery of a Plaintiff’s Medical History

Because only privileged materials will be prohibited from discovery under this broad rule contained within K.S.A. § 60-226(b)(1), the primary privilege that will limit discovery of a plaintiff’s medical history by a defendant is the physician-patient privilege, contained within K.S.A. § 60-427(b). This privilege affords a person in civil cases, whether a party or not, the following right:

[T]o refuse to disclose, and to prevent a witness from disclosing, a communication, if the person claims the privilege and the judge finds that: (1) The communication was a confidential communication between patient and physician; (2) the patient or the physician reasonably believed the communication necessary or helpful to enable the physician to make a diagnosis of the condition of the patient or to prescribe or render treatment therefor; (3) the witness (i) is the holder of the privilege, … and (4) the claimant is the holder of the privilege

K.S.A.§ 60-427(b). Once a privilege is asserted, the determination of if the physician-patient privilege is applicable to the medical records sought by a defendant will require the Court to complete an in camera review of the medical records. Kansas Med. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty, 291 Kan. 597, 623, 244 P.3d 642, 660 (2010). Only upon completion of this review will any discovery be ordered. Berst v. Chipman, 232 Kan. 180, 187, 653 P.2d 107 (1982).