August 18, 2011


       Summary of MJ Estate Counter-claim petition against Lloyd's of London

  • In the Spring of 2009, Lloyd’s issued a cancellation insurance to AEG and Michael Jackson Company (MJC) providing indemnity for $17.5M IF the London Concerts are cancelled
  • Lloyd's would indemnify AEG & MJC for the development and production costs in the event that the minimum number of shows required to recoup said costs didn’t materialize due to “perils” covered by the insurance policy
  • The insurance policy defined the “perils” as “accident to or illness of any other insured person…which entirely prevents any insured person from appearing in any or all of the insured performances or events
  • Before the policy was issued, a phsicial approved by Lloyd’s examined MJ and reported that he was “in good health” and “in excellent condition”. This Is It rehearsal footage similarly shows MJ in excellent condition
  • On June 25, 2009, MJ passed away. London Concerts were cancelled. Tickets had to be refunded and losses far exceeding $17.5M were incurred.
  • A claim for indemnity was filed
  • MJC believes and alleges that rather than performing a good faith investigation, Lloyd’s immediately began looking for ways to avoid paying.
  • On July 10, 2009, before Lloyd’s could conduct a thorough investigation, they proceeded to send a reservation of rights letter stating that “serious issues may exist with respect to the coverage”
  • On December 3, 2009, Lloyd’s sent a second a reservation of rights letter stating that the coverage didn’t exist because according to the policy was “restricted to losses resulting from accidents only” and that Michael’s death was ruled as homicide.
  • Lloyd’s claim is wholly unsupported by and totally inconsistent with applicable law. Accidental death is one that was not designed or anticipated by the insured. Mr. Jackson’s death obviously meets this definition.”
  • MJC believes and alleges that to get out of paying, Lloyd’s repeatedly demanded unnecessary documents just to create a pretense that the insured didn’t cooperate
  • Lloyd’s also repeatedly kept asking for the documents that the insured had stated that they didn’t have or documents which were already provided to the insurer
  • MJC performed provisions of the insurance policy (paid premiums)
  • Lloyd’s is breaching the contract by refusing the indemnify
  • The Estate wants Lloyd’s to pay up

      MJ Estate motion requesting protective order for MJ medical records 

  • On July 12, 2011, Lloyd’s of London subpoenaed for the production of documents related to the following MJ medical records
ü  Dr. Edward Kantor
ü  Dr. Arnold Klein
ü  Cherilyn Lee
ü  Dr. Allan Metzgar
ü  Nutrimed Health
ü  Mickey Fine Pharmacy
ü  Westcliff Laboratories

  • After Michael’s death, his Estate holds his physician-client privilage
  • Michael Jackson Estate objects to providing said medical files and seeks a protective order preventing disclosure of these documents on these grounds:  (1)the said documents are protected as per the physician-client privilege      (2) the documents are irrelevant to the Lloyd’s of London lawsuit
  • Subpoenas issued to Dr. Kantor, Klein, Metzgar, Cherilyn Lee and her affiliated company Nutrimed Health seeks documents covering a 7 ½ year period from January 1, 2004 to present. The subpoena covers 16 categories:
ü  “Documents related to Michael Jackson” (Category 1)
ü  “Communications related to Michael Jackson” (Category 2)
ü  “Documents related to Michael Jackson medical examinations” (Category 3)
ü  Medical treatment and care of Michael Jackson including admission and discharge summaries, Emergency Room medical records, billing records, doctors and nurses notes, prescription and refill records, lab results, pharmacy and medication records” (Category 5)
ü  “Documents relating to any tissue samples or specimen of Michael Jackson” (Category 9)

  • The subpoena to the Mickey Pharmacy contains 7 categories:
ü  “Documents related to Michael Jackson” (Category 1)
ü  “Documents related to medical treatment/care of Michael Jackson including pharmacy and medical records, prescription and refill records, prescription and refill billing records (Category 5)

  • Subpoena to Westcliff Medical Laboratories contains 5 categories which are same as the 5 categories listed above of the 16 categories for doctors

  • On August 1, 2011 the MJ estate sent an email (see below) to Lloyd’s objecting to the subpoenas and requesting that Lloyd’s withdraw them voluntarily. MJC also sent a letter to Lloyd’s objecting to the subpoenas. Lloyd’s of London hasn’t withdrawn subpoenas or responded to the email.
  • “The court, upon motion reasonably made by a person may make an order squashing a subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable demands, including unreasonable violations of the rights of privacy of the person” Code of Civ. & Proc. 1987
  • California’s physician-client privilege prohibits bars the production of confidential communications between a patient and his physician
  • Files requested by Lloyd’s are protected by the physician-patient privilege
  • Estate doesn’t wave Michael’s patient-physician privilege and requests the court to order a protective order prohibiting the release of MJ medical info

The Email MJ Estate sent to Lloyd’s on August 1, 2011

Paul K Schrieffer

Re: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s vs AEG et al. –subpoenas for medical records

Dear Paul:

We are in receipt of the subpoenas served by your office on behalf of the Lloyd’s syndicates on the custodians of records for Dr. Edward Kantor, Dr. Arnold Klein, Cherilyn Lee, Dr. Allan Metzgar, Nutrimed Healtcare, Westcliff Laboratories and G and J Gross (dba Mickey Fine Pharmacy) (collectively, the “Medical Subpoenas”). The Medical subpoenas are plainly invalid because they seek confidential medical records of a consumer, and you failed to comply the consumer notice requirements set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Please be advised that the Estate of Michael Jackson (which holds the physician-patient privilege in the wake of Mr. Jackson’s death) objects to the production of any documents containing confidential information pertaining to Mr. Jackson’s medical treatment or health. By copy of this letter, we are advising the subpoenaed parties of the Estate’s objections and are dir3ecting them to respect the Estate’s assertions of the physician-patient privilege.

The Estate further objects to the Medical subpoenas in their entirety on the grounds that they are grossly overbroad and seek information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of the action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence thereon.

For example, the Medical Subpoenas broadly ask all documents “referring or relating to Michael Joseph Jackson” for the 7 ½ year period from January 1, 2004 to the resent. There is no justification for this grossly overbroad request and Lloyd’s is not entitled to the documents it seeks.

First, as you know, the Estate did not commence this litigation –your clients did. Consequently, the Estate cannot be deemed to have placed Mr. Jackson’s medical condition at issue, and the exception to the privilege which may have applied has the Estate done so is irrelevant. See Wegner, Fairbank, Epstein and Chernow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group, Rev. #1 2006), & 8:2144 (“& 996 exception applies only if the patient tenders the issue of his or her medicinal condition.”

Second, even if Lloyd’s were entitled to take discovery of certain limited medical information (which the estate does not concede), it has no right to conduct a scorched earth invasion of Mr. Jackson’s privacy. California Law is clear that a patient who tenders the issue of his or her health in litigation does so only as to information which relates to the claimed injury. E.g., Hallendorf v. Superior Court (pflibsen), 85 Cal.App.3d 553 (1978) (section 996 waiver “extends only to information relating to the medical conditions in question, and does not automatically open all of a plaintiff’s past medical history to scrutiny”). See also Slagle v. Superior Court (Maryon), 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1313 (1989). In accordance with this authority, the document demands in the Medical Subpoenas are plainly overbroad and improper.

Based on your failure to serve the required consumer notices alone, the Medical Subpoenas should be immediately withdrawn. We hereby demand that you immediately do so. Please be advised that, since the physician-patient privilege belongs to the patient and cannot be waved by the medical provider, we fully expect that the witnesses will respect the estate’s objections and refuse to produce any of the requested documents absent a court order or agreement by the parties.

I am generally available if you want to discuss the matters set firth herein.

Very Truly Yours,
Patricia Millet

Mira Harshmall (counselor for Dr. Arnold Klein)
Dr. Edward Kantor
Cherily Lee
Dr. Allan Metzgar
Herbert Weinberg (counsel for G&J Gross)
Westcliff Medical Labs

* Patricia Millet is a Howard Weitzman Associate & an attorney for the MJ Estate Executers


Post a Comment