WA Supreme Court extends corporate attorney-client privilege to contractors

More than 30 years ago, the Washington Supreme Court ruled defense counsel may not engage in ex parte (or one-party) communications with a suing employee's treating physician. The Loudon rule, as it's known, was revisited and tempered slightly in a 2014 case, Youngs v. PeaceHealth, when the court held hospitals may have ex parte communications with employee-physicians who treated a suing individual, as long as the discussions "are limited to the facts of the alleged negligent event." Recently, the court was asked to consider expanding its holding in Youngs to allow ex parte communications between hospitals and their nonemployee physicians. That is, does the corporate attorney-client privilege outweigh the physician-patient privilege even when the treating doctor is an independent contractor? In a November ruling, the court held it does.

Patient objects to joint representation of hospital, contractor

In 2015, staff at Tacoma General Hospital treated Doug Hermanson for a variety of injuries sustained during an automobile accident. He subsequently sued MultiCare Health System (the owner of Tacoma General), alleging a violation of the physician-patient privilege and unauthorized disclosure of confidential health information. MultiCare retained counsel to jointly represent itself and Dr. Patterson, an independent contractor who treated Hermanson during his hospital stay.