Rules of Civil Procedure Order Amending Rule 4003.6 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure; No. 768 Civil Procedural Rules Docket

On August 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amended Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.6 to add commentary acknowledging the holding in Mertis v. Oh, 317 A.3d 529 (Pa. 2024).

PAMED and the American Medical Association filed multiple amici curiae briefs as the case moved through the appellate process. The case focused on the interpretation of Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.6, a rule that covers the obtaining of discovery from a treating physician in a lawsuit. The rule is intended to help protect the physician-patient relationship. We argued that the Superior Court misinterpreted the rule, therein wrongfully limiting the available attorneys for the physicians involved in the case.

In Mertis, two physicians that had treated the plaintiff were represented by the same law firm, but only one of the physicians had been sued. The physicians argued that the plain language of Rule 4003.6 allowed for the exchange of information between the two physicians outside of the discovery process. The Superior Court rejected that argument.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court decision, concluding that a law firm representing a defendant treating physician cannot obtain information from a nonparty treating physician without the patient’s written consent or through an authorized method of discovery.

Since the amendments to the rule are technical in nature, the changes were not published for comment.

For more information, please review the September 13, 2025 edition of the Pennsylvania Bulletin.