to the conflict of laws question. In the present case, the Minnesota and Wisconsin physician-patient privilege rules directly conflict. Minnesota’s physician-patient privilege has its genesis in Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(d) (2002): A licensed physician * * * shall not, without the consent of the patient, be allowed to disclose any information or any opinion based thereon which the professional acquired in attending the patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable the professional to act in that capacity. A blood sample taken for treatment purposes is information acquired by the physician that is necessary to enable him to act in a professional capacity and is included in the privilege. See State v. Stoat, 291 Minn. 394, 400, 192 N.W.2d 192, 197 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Thus, under Minnesota’s physician-patient
recognizing superior court must conduct an  on the record examination to determine defendants voluntariness and knowledge holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law holding that a relator did not have direct knowledge of an alleged fraud when the knowledge was obtained in part by review of publiclyfiled payroll records holding that the statutes broad language encompasses physical articles verbal communications and any other knowledge obtained by the physician through his observation and examination holding that attorneys affidavit was not competent evidence of his clients agreement or communications with the defendants because it was not based on personal knowledge