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

There are virtually no practical limitations. The Vermont Supreme Court has determined “that, by bringing an action for damages arising from the injuries the plaintiff claims to have suffered” the plaintiff waives the privilege of keeping their medical history private as relates to the injury complained of. Mattison v. Poulen, 134 Vt. 158, 161 (1976). The Poulen decision is the bedrock of the Court’s viewpoint on this matter, and it has been consistently followed by the Vermont state courts and Federal courts applying Vermont law. See State v. Valley, 153 Vt. 380 (1989); Castle v. Sherburne Corp, 141 Vt. 157 (1982); Rose v. Vt. Mut. Ins., 2007 WL 3333394 (U.S.D.C., D.Vt.).

The Poulen Court determined that “once the patient has waived the privilege afforded him under 12 V.S.A. § 1612, by the commencement of an action, such waiver applies to the discovery of matters causally or historically related to the patient-plaintiff’s health put in issue by the injuries and damages claimed in the action. Id. at 162.

The Court explained its reasoning:

certainly in the interest of justice the defendant in an action for personal injuries and loss of income has the right to determine whether the injuries or conditions complained of result from any other injury or illness which the patient-plaintiff has suffered. Now there can be no doubt but that the defendants would be allowed, in trial, to introduce any evidence to show that the injuries of which the plaintiff complains antedated the time of the incident of which he complains, or that his condition had been aggravated by subsequent illness or accident. A plaintiff’s attribution of his injuries to an accident ‘puts in issue whether or not they actually antedated the accident.Id. (citations omitted).

The Court has placed certain limits on the ability to obtain a complete medical history based on “lack of bearing” to the issue complained of. This “lack of bearing” is broader than evidentiary relevance, as the Court stated “We recognize the fact that a party may be entitled to more on a discovery proceeding than he would be able to introduce in evidence.” Id. The Court further specified, “This ‘bearing or lack of bearing’ is for the lower court’s consideration, not solely for the subjective opinion of the party plaintiff. Id.

 Regarding concern of plaintiffs that certain interrogatories might be propounded on medical matters that have no connection with the injuries complained of and could result in a plaintiff being compelled to give humiliating and embarrassing answers, the Court provides the remedy of a protective order at the discretion of the trial court. Id.