The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the surviving family members of a deceased motorist may obtain the other driver’s narrative of what happened, but they cannot do it through the medical records generated from his post-accident hospital visit.

Relatives of Timothy Trenshaw sought to use five sentences from the notes of an emergency department physician who treated truck driver Eugene Jennings after the 2022 accident that killed Trenshaw. Although those five sentences contained Jennings’ description of the accident, Jennings argued they were shielded by the confidentiality afforded to the physician-patient relationship.

In a May 12 opinion, the Supreme Court agreed a trial judge mistakenly reviewed those sentences line-by-line to determine if each was relevant to Jennings’ treatment, rather than deem the document itself confidential.

“The notes in the medical records reflect information provided by Jennings to his emergency department physician during treatment, and the physician would not have been in a position to receive that information if he hadn’t been a treating professional,” wrote Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr.

“We have never sanctioned a system in which a trial court must conduct a sentence-by-sentence analysis of medical records,” he continued, “to determine, in hindsight, whether the information contained in each sentence or statement was necessary for the treating physician to prescribe or act for the patient.”

Jennings was driving a truck through Custer County in July 2022 when it overturned on a curve and killed Trenshaw. Trenshaw’s family members filed a wrongful death suit against Jennings and his employer. The plaintiffs sought to use portions of Jennings’ post-accident medical records as evidence, but Jennings maintained they were subject to physician-patient confidentiality in their entirety.

Although large swaths of the parties’ written briefs contained redactions about the steps taken in the investigation, Samour indicated that a Colorado State Patrol trooper obtained a search warrant for Jennings’ medical records at the hospital where he received post-accident treatment. The 11th Judicial District Attorney’s Office ultimately charged Jennings with vehicular homicide and careless driving.

During the course of the wrongful death lawsuit, Jennings’ lawyers filed an open records request with the DA’s office, seeking any communications between the prosecution and the plaintiffs’ attorneys. They learned the DA’s office had Jennings’ medical records, even though he never surrendered his physician-patient confidentiality.

Initially, Jennings was successful in getting an order for the plaintiffs to destroy the records they had obtained. Then, the plaintiffs received a police report from the district attorney’s office containing a screenshot of the medical records, with the five-sentence narrative of the accident that Jennings told his doctor.

The plaintiffs argued the five sentences were “not medically relevant” for Jennings’ treatment, but Jennings maintained the screenshot remained confidential because it was his medical record.

Then-District Court Judge Lynette M. Wenner reviewed each sentence and agreed they were not necessary for the doctor to treat Jennings. Therefore, physician-patient confidentiality did not apply. Jennings challenged that ruling directly to the Supreme Court.

During oral arguments, Jennings’ attorney emphasized the longstanding rule is to deem treatment records confidential unless the patient waives confidentiality.

“Do we worry that somebody could try to immunize a fact by just disclosing it to a doctor?” Samour asked. “People could just start saying stuff they don’t want disclosed.”

“Candidly, we want people to be able to walk into the physician’s office and ‘blurt out’ whatever it is that may be responsive,” responded attorney Kendra N. Beckwith.

Ultimately, the court agreed Wenner should not have performed a line-by-line review of the screenshotted medical record at all. Samour deemed it “infeasible” for judges, who are not medical experts, to determine in hindsight what information may or may not have been necessary for treatment in the moment.

“Interfering with the physician–patient relationship would not only be unfair to the patient, who has provided information in confidence, it could also adversely affect the quality of medical care available,” he wrote. “It would require physicians or other medical personnel to come to court in every case in which there is a dispute about the physician–patient privilege to identify what information acquired during treatment was necessary.”

Samour added that the plaintiffs may seek Jennings’ recollection of the accident in other ways common to civil lawsuits. But even if the publicly available police report contained the details, “Jennings certainly should not suffer the consequences of law enforcement obtaining his privileged information without his consent,” Samour concluded.

Jennings has since pleaded guilty to multiple counts of careless driving. Court records show that on the same day as the Supreme Court’s opinion, he received a sentence of jail plus probation.

The case is Trenshaw v. Jennings et al.