and social security number, prior to disclosing these records to Plaintiff.... 2 . The records sought in this case would not be discoverable in many malpractice cases because they would not be relevant, However, in this case, Dr, Altstiel’s expert made the information relevant in his deposition testimony, and Dr. Altstiel does not contest the court's relevancy determination for purposes of this appeal. 3 . The Chief Justice’s dissent contends that the plain text of SDCL 19-19-503 is broad enough to cover all medical records, whether identifying or nonidentifying. CJ. Gilbert-son’s dissent ¶¶ 18, 20. Both dissenting opinions point out that we have applied the privilege in SDCL 19 — 19—503 to a doctor’s treatment records. See, e.g., Shamburger v. Behrens, 380 N.W.2d 659, 662 (S.D.1986) (<HOLDING>). However, the dissent’s cases such as
holding that plaintiffs may not compel discovery of a doctors alcoholism treatment records pursuant to ars  122235 2003 physicianpatient privilege in negligence action against doctor recognizing the tort of breach of physicianpatient privilege holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in medical records because of statutory exception to physicianpatient privilege in homicide trials holding courts have held that hospitals have a duty to protect its patients from the tortious or criminal actions of third parties due to the special relationship between the hospital and the patient holding that a hospitals records of a patients treatment for alcoholism were protected by the physicianpatient privilege emphasis added and were therefore not discoverable in an action attempting to prove that the patient had a problem with alcohol