Skip to main content

Canfield v. Sandock

Citations

  • 563 N.E.2d 526
  • 1990 Ind. LEXIS 243
  • 1990 WL 192071

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • observing that “the ethical rules of the medical profession . . . prohibit disclosure of confidential information in non-judicial settings” and that the “Hippocratic Oath imposes on physicians a duty to maintain confidences acquired in their professional capacity”
  • “Medical information which is unrelated to the condition in issue and irrelevant to the cause remains privileged and therefore protected from discovery.”
  • \[M]edical information which is unrelated to the condition in issue and irrelevant to the cause remains privileged and therefore protected from discovery.\
  • by bringing personal- injury claim, plaintiff waived physician-patient privilege as to matters causally and historically related to the condition at issue and directly medically relevant to claim, counterclaim, or defense
  • discussing the creation of the physician-patient privilege

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Debruler, Pivarnik, Shepard, Givan, Dickson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

49 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Canfield v. Sandock

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.