argues that the defendant has waived the physician-patient privilege by his alleged intent to introduce expert testimony rebutting the State's evidence of the defendant’s intoxication. The defendant responds that his expert does not intend to rely on the medical records at issue here in giving his opinions. Although the State’s waiver argument is addressed to the applicability of section 622.10, an issue we do not address, we consider the State's argument anyway because it is also relevant to the issue of whether the defendant has waived his right to control the release of his medical records. We think it is clear that the defendant's action in rebutting the State's evidence would not serve to waive the statutory privilege. See Chung v. Legacy Corp., 548 N.W.2d 147, 150 (Iowa 1996) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, we hold that the defendant’s
holding that the concealment of ones identity does not toll the running of the statute of limitations holding that a complete prohibition against an opponents use of in camera review to establish the applicability of the crimefraud exception to the attorneyclient privilege is inconsistent with the policies underlying the privilege holding that the denial of an element or factor of ones opponents case does not operate as a waiver of the section 62210 privilege holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver holding that voluntary testimony before a grand jury did not waive the privilege at trial because it is settled that a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs