It doesn’t surprise me that Norm Pattis has a thing about doctors.  After all, at his age, the snap of a latex glove behind your back can’t help but cause a visceral reaction.  Still, calling a visit by federal marshals on a recalcitrant doctor “a thing of beauty” might be viewed as a bit uncaring. 

A doctor was issued a subpoena to bring medical records to court. He refused to come unless and until his patient signed a release to turn over the medical records. When it was explained to him that a subpoena is a court order that he must obey, he said he did “not understand it that way.”

So a federal judge was asked to intervene. U.S. Marshals made a call to the doctor, explaining, politely, I presume, that he had two choices: Either get in the car and come to court with the requested records, or wait for the marshals to come and get him. Those were his only two options.

There is undoubtedly a degree of satisfaction about making some smug doctor, too busy and important to take a phone call and too far above reproach to heed an admonition, comply.  But I’m reluctant to tar them all with the same brush.

In the course of their practice, physicians frequently touch upon aspect of law.  Being a generally bright group, this creates a belief that they know enough to make assess their legal responsibilities and intelligent choices.  Some are generally helpful and cooperative.  Some admit that they really aren’t all that clear on when they should be cooperative and when they ought to refuse to disclose. The HIPAA packet explains a lot, but it’s much too long for anybody to read.  And then there are those who believe that they are a law unto themselves.  They are brilliant, and the law is beneath them.  If they decide that they don’t have to do something, then they don’t.

This can be rather infuriating to lawyers, who suspect that all physicians look down on us.  They do, of course, but still need us, much as we all need plumbers when our pipes leak.  They have an entirely different attitude when they are the target of the prosecution, or the defendant in a med-mal action (which is also a reason why they look down at lawyers, manufacturing malpractice when all they did was maim a patient by accident). 

Is this antagonism between professionals healthy?  It may well be, as I can imagine that unduly compliant physicians would reduce confidentiality to something akin to giving your personal information to the government.  In a sense, I admire physicians who refuse to disclose information about a patient, even if inappropriately.  At least it’s better than the party that vomits whatever privileged communication they have as soon as they smell a lawyer letter in their mailbox.  Or worse yet, total disclosure when a cop tells them, “then I’m going to have to get a court order if you don’t want to cooperate.”  As if their non-cooperation puts them on the “evil doctor” list.

Norm is right that a nice visit from the marshals serves to remind doctors that they too are required to comply with a court order.  The arrogance to think otherwise is the sort of thing that makes lawyers really angry.  There are other people who are too self-important to believe that they are obliged to honor an order of a court.  We meet them all the time.  We ask them, cajole them, try everything in our bag of tricks to persuade them, to follow the law.  They sometimes laugh in our face.  “Hahahaha.  I decide what I do, not you, you lawyer-scum, or your stinking judge too.” 

Sometimes, it’s nice to know that federal judges have marshals to do the persuasion for you.  Now that’s a thing of beauty.