Hello everyone -- I've got yet another question.
We have a case where this person went to several doctors, using self & children, to get cough medicine. Way more than enough to raise red flags. Doctors provided investigator with information to confirm the suspicions. Now DL has filed a motion to suppress because drs violated 159.003(b) Occ Code,, which reads: "Exceptions to the Confidentiality in Court or Administrative Proceedings
(a) An exception to the privilege of confidentiality in a court or administrative proceeding exists
(10) in a criminal prosecution in which the patient is a victim, witness, or defendant.
(12)(b) This section does not authorize the release of confidential information to investigate or substantiate criminal charges against a patient."

TRE 509 Says there is no dr-patient privilege in criminal cases, except for drug/alcohol treatment situations.

Is it me, or does the Occ code not make sense? It seems to directly contradict itself. I haven't been able to find any cases like mine in lexis. If anyone has encountered this situation, please respond. If you don't want to post on here, e-mail me at ehernandez@wacounty.com

Thanks.

You might check with the Texas State Board of Pharmacy. One of their investigators (Robert Lunsford) did a presentation on "Scrips" cases at the Annual Update this past year and I bet he could help you or point you to a lawyer that handles a bunch of these cases.

Thank you Stacy. It seems your domino thread has generated more interest than my question. Can I get any help from the research attorney at TDCAA? Anyone? I will call that investigator, but my question is about the occupation code. Maybe I should I call the TDCAF? I sent them a check, maybe they can help me.

Well dominoes is a very serious subject Your thread has 120+ views but only my reply which makes me think that most of the people that looked had the same thought I did...occupations code do we have one of those in this office???

Lunsford is a good guy. He was a DPS trooper in Bastrop when I was there many years ago. Since he deals with those cases all the time, he's probably more able to help you than even the average atty type.

Good luck !

Hey E,

I'm sorry you're having trouble finding an answer to your question. I think one reason is that there isn't any good authority out there yet (at least I couldn't find any cases) that will help you navigate the intersection between that Occupations Code provision and the Rules of Evidence. In general, though, note that Texas Rule of Evidence 101(c) sets out a hierarchy of how to weigh the value of rules vs. statutes, and it says that "civil statutes" take precedence over the Rules of Evidence. I think Stacey's suggestion to call the investigator is a good one -- he might have encountered this apparent conflict in a case before and know what happened.

More specifically, though, please don't ever hesitate to call TDCAA directly if you have a legal question -- (512)474-2436. Although we all try to check the user forums regularly, we intend the user forums to be more like a discussion between prosecutors, rather than a place where we post the answers to specific legal questions. On days where the research attorney (Sean Johnson) is flooded with phone calls and/or is trying to get the case summaries e-mail put together (the end of each week), he may not necessarily get to the user forum. But he'll always respond to a phone call or e-mail. His e-mail address is johnson@tdcaa.com

Hope this helps,
Diane Beckham
TDCAA Senior Staff Counsel

All one can conclude is that the reference to "confidential information" in subsection (b) must be to something other than what is excepted from the privilege of confidentiality under subsection (a)(10), (12).

Of course, there is also a question about whether violation of this statute would be related to the purpose of the exclusionary rule. E.g., Phillips, 109 S.W.3d at 569 fn. 4. It seems more designed to protect the physician-client relationship.

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who helped. Janet A. with DPS e-mailed me a case cite that saved the day for me at the hearing yesterday. Ramos v. State, 124 S.W.3d 326. Hope it comes in handy for any of you who may face this issue in the future.