Opinion
09-11-2015
In the Matter of the Petition for the Appointment of a Guardian of the Person and Property for BM, Pursuant to SCPA Article 17–A.
Mark D. Brody, Esq., Joshua A. Brody, Esq., Brody & Brody, LLP, Delmar, Attorney for Petitioner. Michael W. Gadomski, Esq., Disability Rights New York, Albany, Attorney for Respondent.
Mark D. Brody, Esq., Joshua A. Brody, Esq., Brody & Brody, LLP, Delmar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Michael W. Gadomski, Esq., Disability Rights New York, Albany, Attorney for Respondent.
Opinion
PAUL V. MORGAN JR., J. KM (hereinafter petitioner) commenced this guardianship proceeding, pursuant to Article 17–A of the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, seeking her appointment as the guardian of the person and property of her 20–year old son, BM (hereinafter respondent). At the time of filing, the respondent was a residential student at Vanderheyden Hall, Inc., a non-profit organization providing services to persons with disabilities, located in Rensselaer County. He currently lives with the petitioner. On return of citation, respondent appeared with counsel, Michael W. Gadomski, Esq., from Disability Rights New York, and objected to the petition. He later filed formal written objections which contend, among other things, that he does not want or need a guardian.
The matter is presently before the Court upon motion of the respondent for an order dismissing the application for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Respondent alleges the petition must be dismissed based upon the vague and unauthorized medical certifications submitted by the petitioner in support of her application (seeSCPA 1750–a). More specifically, the respondent contends the certifications violate privilege and privacy rights afforded to him under federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the physician-patient privilege set forth in CPLR 4504, and the psychologist-patient privilege set forth in CPLR 4507.
SCPA 17–A is a simple guardianship device by which this Court can appoint a guardian for an individual based on a diagnosis of mental retardation, developmental disabilities, or traumatic brain injury(seeSCPA 1750, 1750–a [1][a]-[c] ). The diagnosis of mental retardationor developmental disability must be certified by one licensed physician and one licensed psychologist, or by two licensed physicians (seeSCPA 1750–a[1]–[2]). Generally, the certifications are submitted by the petitioner contemporaneous with the petition.
Here, the petitioner submitted certifications by LA, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist at Vanderheyden Hall, Inc. and SR, a general psychiatrist consulting at Vanderheyden Hall, Inc. The respondent was examined by Dr. LA and evaluated by Dr. SR in March 2015. The respondent was an adult when both certifications were signed and he did not consent to the use of his medical records for the purposes of this proceeding.
The application of the physician-patient privilege to SCPA Article 17–A proceedings is addressed in In re Derek, 12 Misc.3d 1132, 821 N.Y.S.2d 387 (Sur. Ct. Broome County 2006), where the Surrogate concluded that the physician-patient privilege must apply to guardianship proceedings under SCPA 17–A. The court referred to the holding in In re Tara X.,(N.Y.L.J., Sept, 18, 1996 [Sup.Ct. Suffolk County 1996] ) that the physician-patient privilege applies to MHL Article 81 guardianship proceedings and noted, “[i]t would certainly be arbitrary to say that the respondent against whom a proceeding for the appointment of a guardian is brought can assert the physician-patient privilege in one type of proceeding, but not the other. That would be unequal operation of the law violative of due process” (see id.). The court further held that the HIPAA rules regarding confidentiality of patient information applied and, absent patient consent or a court order, the certifications cannot be considered.
This Court agrees with the holding in In re Derekthat the physician-patient privilege and HIPAA privacy rules apply to guardianship proceedings under SCPA Article 17–A. The two certifications obtained by the petitioner herein absent the respondent's consent or court order must be stricken.
The Court, however, rejects the respondent's assertion that absent the certifications the petition fails to state a cause of action and must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). The medical certifications required by SCPA 1750& 1750–bare not a necessary component of the pleading itself (seeSCPA 1752) and, a CPLR 3211(a)(7)motion lies only if the pleading is defective on its face (see Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970 [1976]). There are sufficient allegations in the petition to create a question of fact as to whether the respondent is mentally retarded or developmentally disabled and in need of a guardian (seeSCPA 1750& 1750–A; see In re Derek,supra). Based upon the foregoing, the petitioner's motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPRL 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action is denied and the two medical certifications submitted by the petitioner in support of her petition are stricken. It is not necessary to address the respondent's remaining argument that the contents of the certifications are impermissibly vague. A Court conference will be held in this matter. Counsel is directed to appear at the court conference with their respective clients. This shall constitute both the Decision and Order of the Court. All papers are retained by the Surrogate's Court Chief Clerk who is directed to enter this Decision and Order this date without notice and send copies to the attorneys of record. Attorney Michael W. Gadomski, Esq., is directed to serve all attorneys of record with a copy of this Decision and Order with notice of entry.