(a) General Rule. Information may be obtained from the treating physician of a party only upon written consent of that party or through a method of discovery authorized by this chapter.
Rule 4003.6.Discovery of Treating Physician.
Adopted April 29, 1991 · Last amended August 27, 2025 · Last verified June 30, 2026
In one sentenceInformation may be obtained from a party's treating physician only with that party's written consent or through an authorized method of discovery, except that an attorney may still get information from the attorney's own client or the client's employees.
Full Text of Rule 4003.6
(b) Exception. This rule shall not prevent an attorney from obtaining informa- tion from:
(1) the attorney’s client;
(2) an employee of the attorney’s client; or
(3) an ostensible employee of the attorney’s client.
Plain-English Summary
This rule guards the treating-physician relationship in discovery. As a general matter, information may be obtained from a party’s treating physician only upon that party’s written consent or through a discovery method the chapter authorizes — not through informal, ex parte contact.
The rule carves out an exception so an attorney may still obtain information from the attorney’s own client, an employee of the client, or an ostensible employee. The Comment flags the overlap with other confidentiality requirements. Channeling access to a treating physician through consent or formal discovery protects the patient’s confidences while still allowing legitimate case investigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a lawyer contact the other party's treating doctor?
Only with the party's written consent or through an authorized method of discovery, not by informal ex parte contact.
Are there exceptions?
Yes. An attorney may obtain information from the attorney's own client or the client's employees.
Official Note
Comment. : Practitioners should be aware of the overlap between the requirements of this rule and the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding the procedural and ethical ramifications when a firm represents a treating physician or has preexisting attorney-client relationships with multiple physicians, at least one of whom it represents in connection with a medical professional liability action. See Mertis v. Oh, 317 A.3d 529 (Pa. 2024) (holding that (1) information may be considered to have been obtained, for pur- poses of the rule, by imputation from one attorney at a law firm to another attorney at the same firm, and (2) an attorney cannot avail himself or herself of the ‘‘attorney’s client exception’’ pursuant to subdivision (b) by initiating an attorney-client relationship with a treating physician if the attorney would be otherwise subject to the restrictions of the rule as to that treating physician).
Amendment History
The provisions of this Rule 4003.6 adopted April 29, 1991, effective July 1, 1991, 21 Pa.B. 2337; amended August 27, 2025, effective immediately, 55 Pa.B. 6532. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (373040).
Source & verification. Rule text, the Official Note, and the amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the Pennsylvania Code, Title 231, the official compilation
of rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Last verified June 30, 2026. ·
Official text
Also known as: treating physician discoveryex parte physician contact