Does this website blow up confidentiality clauses in medical malpractice settlement agreements?
The Office of Attorney General, Division of Consumer Affairs is empowered by law to report all instances of medical malpractice settlements or verdicts on its website. The appellate division in a recent decision refused to enforce a confidentiality clause because it was inconsistent with Rule 1:38, which provides public access to court records. Further, the panel found a confidentiality agreement contravened the provisions of the Health Care Consumer Information Act, which requires online posting of malpractice payments.
Ordinarily, the invalidity of a confidentiality clause would nix the entire settlement. However, the physician’s attorney informed the court on appeal that the confidentiality clause was not central to the settlement, preferring the settlement be enforced.
Here’s screen grab and a link to the website…
Is nothing private anymore? Commentary
Commentary
In this age of transparency, and a world with access to the information highway, disclosure is valued over secrecy. This opinion is consistent with public policy, and the law.
It took awhile for lawyers to get used to public access to legal ethics proceedings. I’m sure health care professionals will adapt to the elimination of another layer of secrecy.
Read more…
The appellate division per curium opinion in Vares-Elbert v. Kelberg
Health Care Consumer Information Act-NJHCCIA
