personal injury actions. Paragraph B of the release states in relevant part as follows" the health

infonnation to be obtained, used or disclosed extends to and includes the verbal as well as the

written..." (emphasis added). Because the act requires the claimant to sign the release in the exact

fonn as set forth in Sec. 74.052, the act appears to specifically allow the defendants or their

attorneys or insurance representatives to have ex-parte communications with all health care

providers who have treated the claimant in connection with the injury alleged and extends to all

health care providers who will treat the claimant in the future for the claimed injury. In addition,

the mandatory release requires the claimant to list the names of all health care providers who

treated the claimant in the five years proceeding the injury, regardless of whether the treatment

was related to the claim. The release then requires the claimant to list all health care providers

who provided treatment unrelated to the claim in order to specifically exempt them trom the

release. The required release appears to violate the provisions of Rule 509(c) regarding the

physician- patient privilege and the patient litigant exception to the privilege. The Supreme Court

in RK. v. Ramirez, 887 S.W. 2d 836 (Tex. 1994) established a two prong test to determine if

medical records meet the patient litigant exception to Rule 509( c). The records must be relevant

to the condition at issue and the condition must be relied upon as a part of the parties claim or

defense. The act shifts the burden to the claimant to prove that the records are not "relevant" to

the damages being claimed. It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the scope of the

required release in light of Rule 509 and Ramirez.

SUBCHAPTER C - INFORMED CONSENT

Sec. 74. 101 ofthe act adopts the provisions of Sec. 6.01 et. seq. of 4590i without substantive

changes.

SUBCHAPTER D- EMERGENCY CARE

Sec. 74.151 exempts trom liability any person who in good faith administers emergency medical

care if the care is given without the expectation of remuneration. This section incorporates the

"good Samaritan" law into the health care liability statute and extends the exemption to hospital

emergency rooms and medical transport facilities. Simply being legally entitled to remuneration

does not determine whether or not the care was administered for or in anticipation of

remuneration. It is now a fact issue for a jury to detennine whether or not the physicians or

hospitals who treated the trauma, heart attack, stroke, pre-natal and similar cases who present to

the emergency room or transport facility without insurance or other means to pay for treatment,

expected to be paid for their services at the time of treatment. In such cases it will be important to

determine the intent of the treating health care provider by determining if a hospital lien was filed

or if an assignment of benefits or other promise to pay was signed by the patient or a

representative on his/her behalf

Sec. 74.153 provides that an emergency room physician, health care provider or health care

institution is not liable for injury or death arising out of the provision of emergency medical care

in an emergency room, surgical suite or obstetrical unit when the services are provided for a fee,