Carr v. 583-587 Broadway Associates

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 10, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
The Supreme Court of New York County, under Justice Lorraine Miller, issued an order on July 19, 1996, regarding discovery requests in a personal injury case involving plaintiffs alleging injuries from exposure to toxic substances in their workplace, specifically an art museum in Manhattan's SoHo district. The court denied the defendant National Testing Laboratories (NTL)'s cross motion for full discovery of the plaintiffs' psychological records for the past five years but partially modified the order to permit limited discovery of those records under a confidentiality protective order, specifically from the onset of the symptoms related to the alleged exposure.

The plaintiffs had claimed various injuries, including forms of depression and anxiety, but three of them withdrew these claims after NTL requested access to their psychological records. Despite this, NTL continued to seek these records, leading to the appeal against the IAS Court's denial of its motion to compel disclosure.

The discovery motion was supported by an affidavit from Dr. Ronald E. Gots, an expert in environmental and occupational toxicology, who stated that psychosocial factors contribute significantly to symptoms associated with indoor environments. He argued that a complete review of medical history, including psychological and psychiatric records, is essential to distinguish between physical and emotional causes of the plaintiffs' symptoms. 

The court noted that typically, plaintiffs are not required to disclose mental health records unless they claim emotional injuries or aggravation of preexisting conditions. However, since the plaintiffs continued to assert psychological symptoms as part of their claims for damages, the court allowed for a limited examination of their psychological history, restricting it to records from the time their symptoms began in connection with the alleged workplace toxicity. The order was affirmed without costs.