Case 4: Eureka Maryland Assur. Co. v Gray (D.C.)121 Fed.

2d 104
Facts
• Plaintiff: Ethel Gray
• Defendant: Eureka- Maryland Assurance Company
• 2 months after the issuance of insurance policy by the Eureka-Maryland Assurance
Company on April 11, 1938, the insured died at Gallinger Hospital due to rheumatic
heart disease with congestive failure.
• A complaint was submitted to the court upon the refusal of payment of the policy
due to unsound health as stated by the defender
• The company attempted to let Dr. Horn, a practicing physician in Washington to
prove the existence of a serious health condition by telling that he treated the
insured at weekly intervals during the period between December 25, 1937 and
June 6, 1938 which is the date of her admission.
• Also, the company attempted to get the testimony of the hospital intern about the
hospital records of the insured which may have proven the presence of serious
illness prior the issuance of the policy.
• The record would have shown that the insured has been suffering from heart
disease and had been treated by her family doctor regularly; and that she had been
previously treated for syphilis, rheumatic heart disease and pulmonary
tuberculosis.
• But the supposed testimony of Dr. Horn and the hospital intern are objected by the
court

Issues

• Whether or not the hospital intern, who is not yet licensed to practice, is qualified
to give patient information.
• Whether or not the patient-doctor privilege is violated if Dr. Horn and the hospital
intern disclose health information and the hospital records of the insured
• Whether or not Dr. Horn is qualified to testify that he had treated the insured from
December 25, 1937 to June 6, 1938.
• Whether or not the autopsy record can be admissible in evidence.

Ruling
The testimony from the intern and Dr. Horn was deemed inadmissible due to patient’s
right of confidentiality. The intern is considered a physician. He is a graduate of a
medical school with a doctor's degree, though, he is not licensed to practice his
profession in the ordinary way by so holding himself out to the public.

Dr. Horn is qualified to testify in court but his testimony is confined only to the
fact that he had been called to attend and had attended and treated the insured in
a professional capacity during the two-year period immediately preceding the
issuance of the insurance policy.

The autopsy record is admissible in evidence. The relationship between the

surgeon and the body of the dead person is not the relation of physician and
patient.
Lesson
One of the basis of a physician-patient relationship is the right to confidentiality, patients are
information are protected and must be kept private by the physician