Meridian Health Services Corporation v. Thomas Martin Bell , 65 N.E.3d 611 ( 2016 )

FILED
Dec 09 2016, 8:59 am
OPINION ON REHEARING
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
David J. Karnes Gregory K. Blanford
Michael G. Foley The Blanford Law Office
Dennis, Wenger & Abrell P.C. South Bend, Indiana
Muncie, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Meridian Health Services December 9, 2016
Corporation, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Intervenor, 71A04-1511-DR-2005
Appeal from the St. Joseph
v. Superior Court
The Honorable Jenny Pitts Manier,
Thomas Martin Bell, Judge
Appellee-Respondent. Trial Court Cause No.
71D05-1002-DR-94
Robb, Judge.
[1] In Meridian Health Servs. Corp. v. Bell, 61 N.E.3d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), we
affirmed the trial court’s imposition of sanctions on a mental health provider for
failing to appear at a deposition and refusing to release a child’s mental health
records to her non-custodial parent. Meridian Health Services Corporation
(“Meridian”) seeks rehearing of our decision. We grant rehearing to address
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 71A04-1511-DR-2005 | December 9, 2016 Page 1 of 6
one of the grounds raised by Meridian in its petition for rehearing, but reaffirm
our original decision in all respects.
[2] To reiterate the facts as briefly as possible, when Thomas Bell (“Father”) and
Angela Bell (“Mother”) were divorced in 2011, they agreed to share joint legal
custody of their only child, with Mother having primary physical custody. At
some point prior to 2014, Mother began taking the child to Meridian for
therapy. In March 2015, Father contacted Meridian requesting his child’s
therapy records. Meridian informed Father it would first need a signed medical
release, but prior to receiving the release, sought and received from the child’s
physician a letter stating that it was medically necessary that the records not be
released. Based on this letter, even after receiving in May the signed medical
release form it had requested from Father, Meridian refused to release the
therapy records without a court order issued pursuant to Indiana Code chapter
16-39-3. Around this same time, a hearing was set regarding a parenting time
dispute between the parents. In preparation for that July hearing, Father served
a notice of deposition on the child’s therapist and a subpoena duces tecum to
produce her complete file. Three days before the scheduled deposition,
Meridian filed a motion to quash and motion for protective order, asserting it
was prohibited by state and federal law from disclosing the requested
information without a court order. The trial court did not rule on the motions
before the July deposition, and the therapist did not appear. Father then filed a
motion for rule to show cause against the therapist and the trial court set a
hearing on all pending motions. The child’s physician and therapist both
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 71A04-1511-DR-2005 | December 9, 2016 Page 2 of 6
testified at the September hearing, following which the trial court denied
Meridian’s motions, finding Meridian was not required or entitled to withhold
the records from Father. In addition, the trial court noted that even if the
therapist determined she could not testify at a subsequent deposition, she
should appear, state her objection, and turn over the subpoenaed records. The
trial court did not rule on Father’s motion for rule to show cause.
[3] Thereafter, Meridian filed a motion to correct error and Father filed a petition
for attorney’s fees. Father also served a second deposition notice and subpoena
duces tecum on the therapist for an October 2 deposition. Meridian then filed a
motion to stay the proceedings until the trial court ruled on its motion to correct
error and requested an emergency hearing because the second deposition was
imminent. The trial court was unable to hold a hearing before the second
deposition and the therapist again did not appear. Rather, on the date
scheduled for the deposition, Meridian tendered the therapy records to the trial
court and moved to seal the records until resolution of all pending motions and
any potential appeals. The trial court held another hearing about the records,
after which it stated it would make the records available for in camera review by
the parties’ attorneys. After Meridian unsuccessfully sought to certify the trial
court’s order denying its motion to quash and motion for protective order, the
trial court held a hearing to address all remaining motions, including Father’s
motions for rule to show cause and his petition for attorney fees. The trial court
issued an order dated October 30, 2015, concluding Meridian is “in contempt of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 71A04-1511-DR-2005 | December 9, 2016 Page 3 of 6
Court for failure to comply with the subpoena duces tecum and failure to
appear at the deposition.” Corrected Appellant’s Appendix at 19.
[4] Focusing on that sentence of the trial court’s order, Meridian contends our
decision seems to affirm the sanction based upon a “misunderstanding or
misreading of the trial court’s order.” Corrected Appellant’s Petition for
Rehearing at 11. In our opinion, we stated,
the trial court ordered sanctions only after it held a hearing at
which Meridian offered evidence in support of withholding the
records from Father . . ., it ruled against Meridian’s motion to
quash and motion for protective order, and yet Meridian
continued to balk at releasing the records. Meridian filed a
barrage of motions and defied the trial court's order that K.B.’s
therapist appear at any scheduled deposition, make a record of
her inability to testify, and turn over the subpoenaed records,
instead tendering the records directly to the trial court under seal
on the date of a scheduled deposition.
61 N.E.3d at 360. Meridian asserts that even though the timing of the trial
court’s order was “after Meridian exhausted all known avenues to protect their
patient’s records short of this appeal,” the sanction was “based solely upon
Meridian’s actions . . . to refrain from releasing its client’s protected health
information pursuant to [Father’s] initial subpoena duces tecum and notice of
deposition.” Petition for Reh’g at 12.
[5] We acknowledge the quoted sentence of the trial court’s order refers specifically
to the failure to comply with “the” subpoena duces tecum and failure to appear
at “the” deposition. We also note that Father served two subpoenas and notices
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 71A04-1511-DR-2005 | December 9, 2016 Page 4 of 6
of deposition on the therapist, both of which she ignored and the second of
which was served after the trial court issued an order stating the therapist should
appear at any further deposition and make a record of her objections to
testifying. That notwithstanding, we also note the trial court’s order elaborates
on the history of the case beyond simply the therapist’s failure to comply with
the July notice of deposition and subpoena duces tecum. Father filed a motion
for rule to show cause in July (after the missed deposition) and a petition for
attorney’s fees in September (after the hearing on whether Meridian had to turn
over the records). Yet, the trial court did not enter the sanctions order until the
end of October. This was six months after Father first requested the records
and several weeks after the trial court ruled he was entitled to them. It was also
after Meridian made multiple attempts to call the trial court’s ruling into
question but failed to come forward with any additional evidence beyond that
presented originally justifying its continued defiance of the trial court’s order.
In other words, although the trial court’s order was looking back to the initial
failure to appear at a deposition and produce the records, it did so because of
Meridian’s conduct in failing to produce anything over the long course of
litigating this issue that would have justified its failure to show up and comply
with the subpoena in the first place.
[6] It is clear from the entire record of the proceedings that the trial court’s decision
to impose sanctions against Meridian only after the records had finally been
released to the parties was based on the sum total of Meridian’s actions
throughout this litigation and not just on the original failure to comply with a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 71A04-1511-DR-2005 | December 9, 2016 Page 5 of 6
subpoena and appear for a deposition. We did not misread or misunderstand
the substance of the trial court’s order, and we therefore reaffirm our original
decision that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Meridian pay
Father’s attorney fees incurred in obtaining his child’s therapy records.
Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 71A04-1511-DR-2005 | December 9, 2016 Page 6 of 6