Blanck, Walter v. Mil. FBI et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 61 Motion to compel plaintiff to authorize the release of his medical information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 6/2/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

WALTER BLANCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN BAENEN, et al.,

ORDER
13-cv-193-bbc

Defendants.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

In this lawsuit, plaintiff Walter Blanck is proceeding on Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claims and First Amendment retaliation claims against defendant prison officials for
failing to properly treat his heart and lung disease and his severe arthritis. Plaintiff has filed a
motion for preliminary injunctive relief, to which defendants have not responded by the deadline
set by the court. However, after the deadline passed, defendants filed a motion to compel
plaintiff to authorize the release of his medical information by signing an authorization form.1
Plaintiff opposes this motion. While his arguments are characteristically difficult to
follow, I understand plaintiff to be saying that defendants have doctored his medical records in
some way and should not be able to rely on these altered records as evidence in the case.
I will deny defendants’ motion, but not for the reasons argued by plaintiff. Simply put,
this court never forces a prisoner to sign a medical records release form if he would rather
maintain the privacy of his medical information. However, if plaintiff is unwilling to consent
to authorize a medical disclosure in this case, then his decision could result in dismissal of his
lawsuit. This is because defendants may not be able to defend themselves against plaintiff’s

1

I do not understand defendants to be waiting for this authorization before filing a response to
plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Rather, I infer from defendants’ silence that they do
not believe that plaintiff’s motion has any merit. Still, in order to keep the court and the parties on the
same page, the court expects the non-moving party to file something by its scheduled deadline, even if only
a letter stating that it does not intend to file a formal response.

claims without having access to plaintiff's medical records. If plaintiff believes that there
legitimate reasons to withhold certain types of records—such as that the authorization covers
too long of a time period or allows defendants access to sensitive or embarrassing medical
information that is irrelevant to the case—then he should try to work out an agreeable scope of
the authorization form with defendants.
Plaintiff’s belief that the medical records have been tampered with is not a reason to
withhold authorization, but it is an issue that he can raise when he is litigating the substance of
his claims in this case. To the extent that plaintiff wishes to see his records or pay for copies of
them, defendants may not conceal records from him without filing a motion for protective order.
Nor may they destroy records or fabricate records. Plaintiff is free to argue that defendants have
done so and that his medical reality was different from what appears in the record, but he will
need to support his arguments with admissible evidence, such as a declaration made under
penalty of perjury explaining events of which he has first-hand knowledge.

ORDER
It is ORDERED that defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to authorize the release of
his medical information, dkt. 61, is DENIED.
Entered this 2nd day of June 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2