The Colorado Supreme Court agreed on Monday that a Weld County judge properly allowed for disclosure of a deceased man’s medical records in the dispute between his children over the validity of his will.

Writing in the June 10 opinion, Justice Melissa Hart acknowledged that physician-patient confidentiality, much like attorney-client confidentiality, applies even after a person’s death. However, there is an exception in contested will cases where there are allegations the deceased was not of “sound mind” or was subjected to “undue influence.”

“Both claims often cannot be proved or disproved through direct evidence; the factfinder must draw inferences from evidence about what the decedent knew, understood, and believed when the contested will was executed,” she wrote. “These circumstantial assessments would be severely curbed if the decedent’s relevant medical records were off the table.”

Following the 2022 death of Robert Harrison Ashworth, one of his children, Brian Ashworth, moved to contest the will — from which his father excluded him. The most recent will differed from one signed only a few years prior, in which all four of Robert Ashworth’s children benefitted. Between the first and second wills, however, Robert Ashworth began exhibiting signs of dementia and was allegedly being manipulated by two of his daughters.

Brian Ashworth argued in Weld County District Court it was “well established” that evidence about a deceased person’s health is disclosable in such proceedings, and he sought release of his father’s medical records.

Chief Judge Julie Hoskins agreed with Brian Ashworth, finding there was an “issue of Decedent’s dementia and the effect it is alleged to have had on his decision-making capacity.” Further, there was no other source than the medical records to evaluate Robert Ashworth’s mental status.

She ordered a private review of Robert Ashworth’s medical records, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Brian Ashworth defended his request for the documents, arguing his siblings used them “as a shield to hide Decedent’s final years” from him. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office, representing Hoskins, also responded to justify her order.

“The documents ordered to be disclosed by the district court are probative of intent and capacity because Brian can merely speculate about Robert’s mental status before and leading up to the execution of his most recent will. The records will provide clarity in this will contest between heirs,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Fellow Allison S. Block.

The Supreme Court further invited the Colorado Bar Association’s Trust & Estate Section to provide its perspective. The group agreed physician-patient confidentiality exists beyond the patient’s death and is meant to protect the free flow of information between a treating doctor and their client. However, it is not ironclad when there is a question about the decedent’s “sound mind” in executing his will.

“In short, claims of lack of capacity and/or undue influence cannot be adjudicated absent access to relevant medical records,” the organization wrote, siding with Brian Ashworth.

The Supreme Court agreed that a review of medical information, only as necessary to administer Robert Ashworth’s estate, was warranted.

“We are not breaking new ground here. We are simply explicitly recognizing what has been longstanding practice,” wrote Hart.

She added that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, did not apply because there is an exception for the disclosure of medical records in accordance with a court order.

The case is In the Estate of Ashworth.