Safeguarding Privacy Rights of Domestic Violence Survivors

Collaboration for Justice, Policy Statements

People v. Gomez-Ramirez Case Description

On June 16, oral arguments began in the Illinois appellate case of People v. Gomez-Ramirez (AMITA Health Adventist Medical Center, Bolingbrook, and Alexian Brothers-AHS Midwest Region Health Co., Contemnors-Appellants). The case, which is being heard in the Third District of the Illinois Appellate Court, surrounds a domestic violence situation in which prosecutors for the State of Illinois sought to obtain the private medical records of the person harmed. Although this person objected to releasing their medical records, the Will County State’s Attorney subpoenaed the medical facility where the victim sought treatment for injuries sustained in the dispute. The facility, AMITA Health, denied to hand over the patient’s medical records, asserting physician-patient privileges among other violations of the victim’s right to privacy and right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by the State. Despite the privileged and legally protected nature of these documents, the trial court ruled in favor of the State, ordering AMITA Health to turn over the victim’s medical records.

In its decision, the court cited no probable cause for the warrant and no statutory exception for the warrant. Monahan Law Group and Neal, Gerber, & Eisenberg represented AMITA Health in a direct appeal from a civil contempt for declining to produce medical records and invited amici on specific issues related to prosecutorial misconduct and on the rights of crime victims. Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Chicago Council of Lawyers (together the Collaboration for Justice), along with the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, National Crime Victim Law Institute, and the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation (CAASE) filed two separate amicus briefs in support of the appellants, AMITA Health. This case is just one example of the Collaboration for Justice’s ongoing analyses of State’s Attorneys’ Offices in Illinois and around the country; we were granted leave to file an amicus as part of our role in monitoring the culture, policies, and practices of State’s Attorneys’ Offices and reporting on the status of prosecution in Illinois. In this case, the Will County State’s Attorney’s right to search the victim’s health records was improperly asserted, based on mere supposition about the contents of the records. Counsel at DLA Piper, our pro bono partners, drafted and filed the brief.

Monitoring of the Will County State’s Attorneys’ Office

Justice demands accountability. This case is just one example of the ongoing refusal of State’s Attorney’s Offices to allow people affected by violence the opportunity for self-determination, thereby causing more trauma. It is the duty of our prosecutors to provide victims notice of subpoenas of their medical records, and the refusal to allow these victims to be heard before a court ruling on disclosure of those records is unacceptable.

In fact, the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office has described this type of refusal as “the policy” of the Office. AMITA Health is no stranger to this policy, as this is the second subpoena they have recently received for a patient’s medical records, but physician-patient privilege is protected by Section 8-802 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/8-802). This privilege is absolute and expressly forbids healthcare providers from disclosing a patient’s medical records. In its plea to the trial court, the State could point to no statutory exception under which their subpoena fell. Further, under both the Illinois Constitution, Art. I, § 8.1(a)(2), and the Illinois Rights of Crime Victims Witnesses Act § 4(a)(1.5), victims whose privileged records are subpoenaed by the State must receive notice by the State and an opportunity to be heard before a court ruling on the request. Here, the survivor was afforded neither. The State provided no explanation as to why they believed they were exempt from these statutory requirements intended to safeguard crime victim’s rights.

The State’s Attorney’s Office’s policy of refusing to comply with the notice and opportunity requirements of the Illinois Constitution and the Rights of Crime Victims Witnesses Act cannot be permitted by this court or it will render these legal protections nonexistent. Without these safeguards in place, the State will be able to fish for any records they believe, or assert, are remotely relevant to their case. This is not in the best interest of anyone—the accused nor the harmed—especially not in the context of domestic violence. Such a ruling would dissuade people experiencing domestic violence in the future from seeking necessary medical care or pushing for accountability of their aggressors through the court system. Further, it would present a constitutional question before the court.

The State relied on improper readings of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and People v. Cochran, 313 Ill. 508 (1924)—longstanding bastions against prosecutorial misconduct—to invoke a right to the complaining witness’ medical records as part of a duty to protect the defendant. Both Brady and Cochran create duties for state’s attorneys to behave fairly and honestly to ensure defendants have full access to exculpatory information under the control of the state. Cochran further requires state’s attorneys to protect the defendant’s rights even in an adversarial proceeding against them. Neither ruling empowers the State to fish through protected health records over the privilege of the health care provider and rights of the patient.

As a medical provider, AMITA Health has a legal obligation to protect patient information through the physician-patient privilege and related legislation. Even more, because the State skirted its own obligations under state law and the Illinois Constitution by refusing to notify the victim of the subpoena, AMITA Health is the only party present to defend the patient’s rights in this case. The patient has rights which safeguard their privacy and respect; in this matter, they did not consent to the disclosure of their medical records and they did not waive the rights which protect those medical records.

Support for Witness’ Rights

Logo for the Collaboration for Justice of Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Chicago Council of Lawyers.

The Collaboration for Justice urges the court to think about the legal repercussions of extending prosecutorial powers which stifle a person’s constitutional rights. These rights are afforded to the victim and are theirs, and theirs alone, to waive. The State’s attempt to bypass these rights is unconstitutional and unlawful. We urge the court to reverse the trial court’s decision and rule in favor of AMITA Health.

Every person cycling through the court system, whether as a complaining witness or as an accused person, deserves their right to privacy—especially in the context of something as personal as domestic and gender-based violence. As stated in the brief filed by Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, National Crime Victim Law Institute, and CAASE, this case is a clear violation of the victim’s right to privacy and right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. All witnesses of crime find themselves in a vulnerable situation, but court cases related to domestic violence presents a uniquely vulnerable situation based on the nature of the harm. For survivors of sexual assault, sexual abuse, and domestic violence, privacy is an extremely important factor in the healing process; studies show that a main factor in a domestic violence victim’s decision to seek criminal legal assistance is privacy. For courts seeking justice in domestic violence cases, then, it is of the utmost importance that victims feel their right to privacy is respected by the judicial system. 

Issues Covered in Oral Argument

At oral arguments, which took place June 16, 2021, counsel for AMITA Health reiterated that the intent of the Illinois Constitution and Witness and Crime Victims Protection Act is to provide the victim notice and opportunity to comment when their privileged records are requested. The State is not excepted from these requirements, as it has argued. This is supported by the legislative history of the documents, namely the State Assembly’s decision to reject proposed language that would have provided an exception for prosecutorial subpoenas. The final language, passed by the assembly and approved by voters, does not include such an exception. Further, when prompted, counsel for the Will County State’s Attorneys’ Office was unable to point to any relevant exception that might apply to their situation. Instead, the State argued an exception could only be identified upon in-camera review—a clear misuse of this review tool.

The State went on to assert, for the first time in this dispute, that AMITA did not have standing. While the Rules of Civil Procedure quash this argument immediately, AMITA urged the court to dig deeper in its rejection of the argument. The court should recognize that the State’s failure to provide notice to the complaining witness left AMITA as the only entity in the position to assert the rights of that person. If only the patient had standing, as the State argues, the rights would be meaningless as she was completely unaware her rights were being taken advantage of due to the lack of notice. AMITA begs that the court’s ruling reaffirm a healthcare provider’s standing in assertion of the physician-patient privilege.

AMITA also pointed out the inconsistent nature of the State’s argument. Following their assertion that they are exempt from the notice requirement, the State argued that notice given by AMITA was sufficient to satisfy their statutory duty and, further, that the victim verbally consented to disclosure of their medical records. Not only is the State’s notion of notice a misreading of both the Illinois Constitution and the Witness and Crime Victims Protection Act, but it allows the State to push its duty onto a healthcare provider. Under this reading, the victim’s rights hinge on whether the healthcare provider chooses to shoulder the duty of the State. Even more, without any written notice by the victim to AMITA or any record of the victim’s consent to disclosure from the State, AMITA is unable to evade its physician-patient obligations. Supposed verbal consent does not equal express consent. The State’s statement that the victim has verbally consented is, therefore, irrelevant to the argument at hand. In closing its argument, counsel for AMITA Health asked the court to hold the State accountable for its shortcomings and to stand up for the rights of survivors. Survivors should have some control in the disclosure of their medical records. Here, all that is being asked of the court is for survivors’ right to privacy to be respecting by granting them an opportunity to be heard.

People and families dealing with violence deserve the opportunity to safely seek medical care and not fear that their rights to privacy surrounding that medical care will be disclosed in open court at the slightest whiff of relevance from a prosecutor. Chicago Appleseed and the Chicago Council of Lawyers support AMITA Health’s assertion of its patient’s legally protected privileges and, by extension, its assertion of privacy rights for all survivors of domestic violence.

As is typical in these cases, the amici did not participate in oral argument. The arguments are available at the Court’s website (see: 06/16/2021, Third District, Docket No. 03-20-0121, People v. Amita Health Adventist Bolingbrook Hospital).

Contributors: Mercedes Molina, Robina Public Interest Scholar at the University of Minnesota Law School and Public Interest Law Initiative (PILI) Fellow, and Elizabeth Monkus, Staff Attorney, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts.