treatment and the dates of such treatment. 2 Soott N. Stone & Robert K. TayloR, Testimonial Privileges § 7.13 (2d ed. 1993) (emphasis added). See Gechoff v. Our Lady of Victory Hosp., 190 A.D.2d 1060, 593 N.Y.S.2d 682, 683 (N.Y.App.Div.1993) (concluding “that the disclosure of the identity of [a] nonparty witness does not violate the doctor-patient privilege” provided by statute); House v. SwedishAmerican Hosp., 206 Ill.App.3d 437, 151 Ill.Dec. 467, 564 N.E.2d 922, 927 (1990) (“Simply revealing [a] patient’s identity, in and of itself, will not result in the disclosure of confidential communications. It is evident that disclosure of the patient’s name does not violate the physician-patient privilege.”); Jenkins v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 171 Ohio St. 557, 173 N.E.2d 122, 125 (1961) (<HOLDING>); Wolf v. Colorado, 117 Colo. 279, 187 P.2d
holding that defendant medical center which allowed a patient who would likely cause bodily harm to his wife if he had the opportunity to leave the center for a weekend could be liable for the patients actions of killing his wife and her paramour during that weekend because inter alia when the course of treatment of a mental patient involves an exercise of control over him by a physician who knows or should know that the patient is likely to cause bodily harm to others an independent duty arises from that relationship and falls upon the physician to exercise that control with such reasonable care as to prevent harm to others at the hands of the patient punctuation omitted emphasis supplied holding that the patientphysician privilege does not prevent testimony by a physician as to the fact that he was consulted by a patient on a certain date holding that testimony of a physician that a certain individual consulted with him was not privileged holding that in a modification of custody proceeding a custodial parent may not invoke the privilege  to prevent testimony by a physician or psychotherapist as to the childpatients communication relevant to abuse and neglect holding that obstetrician who consulted with patients treating physician by telephone was not in physicianpatient relationship and therefore owed no duty to patient obstetrician did no more than answer professional inquiry of colleague and did not contact examine or treat patient