Click To Call

Email Us For A Free Consultation

No fees for inquiries

(Free consultations are available only in personal injury cases
& it costs nothing to inquire). All inquiries are confidential.
Read our disclaimer

HKQ Firm News

Superior Court Continues to Shape Contours of Peer Review Privilege

(Reprint from Law.com) The Pennsylvania Superior Court has waded once again into the murky waters of peer review privilege, this time laying out the requirements for a document to qualify for protection under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act and clarifying the difference between a nonconfidential incident report and a peer review document covered under the Peer Review Protection Act.

In a precedential April 28 decision in Ungurian v. Beyzman, a unanimous three-judge panel of the appeals court affirmed the order of a Luzerne County trial judge compelling defendant Wilkes-Barre General Hospital to produce several documents in a medical malpractice case it claimed were privileged.

Plaintiff Susan Ungurian, suing Wilkes-Barre General over the incapacity of her son following a cystoscopy procedure at the hospital, sought several documents: an event report completed March 5, 2018, by certified registered nurse anesthetist Robert Burry; the SSER (serious safety event rating) meeting summary dated April 12, 2018; minutes from the Patient Safety Committee meeting held May 15, 2018; the root cause analysis report dated April 12, 2018; the quality improvement staff peer review completed April 15, 2018; and the unredacted credentialing files of Burry and Dr. Andrew Beyzman.

The hospital argued that the Burry event report and the root cause analysis were patient safety work product privileged by the PSQIA. The defendant also argued that the PRPA privilege covered the Burry event report and the root cause analysis, as well as the quality improvement peer review meeting minutes, the SSER meeting summary, minutes from the Patient Safety Committee meeting and certain credentialing files.

The Superior Court panel—made up of Judges Alice Beck Dubow, Anne Lazarus and Victor Stabile—disagreed, however.

With regard to whether the Burry event report and root cause analysis were covered by the PSQIA, the panel said the hospital’s argument fell short of what the statute requires.

“We agree with the trial court’s analysis that the PSQIA requires that, in order to be considered patient safety work product, hospital had the burden of initially producing sufficient facts to show that it properly invoked the privilege,” Dubow wrote in the panel’s April 28 opinion. “Stated another way, hospital had to allege that it prepared the Burry event report for reporting to a [patient safety organization] and actually reported them to a PSO. Because hospital did not so allege, it did not meet its burden to establish that the Burry event report was entitled to protection under the PSQIA’s patient safety work product privilege.”

Turning to whether those two documents were covered under the PRPA, Dubow noted that Section 425.4 of the statute provides that “‘proceedings and records of a review committee shall be held in confidence and shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a professional healthcare provider arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review.’”

The PRPA defines ”peer review” as “the procedure for evaluation by professional health care providers of the quality and efficiency of services ordered or performed by other professional health care providers.” It defines the term “professional healthcare provider” as encompassing  “individuals who are approved, licensed[,] or otherwise regulated to practice or operate in the healthcare field under the laws of the commonwealth.” And lastly, it defines a peer “review organization” as “any committee engaging in peer review … to gather and review information relating to the care and treatment of patients for the purposes of (i) evaluating and improving the quality of health care rendered; (ii) reducing morbidity and mortality; or (iii) establishing and enforcing guidelines designed to keep within reasonable bounds the cost of healthcare.”

Dubow agreed with the trial court that the hospital’s incident and event reports are business records of a hospital and not the records of a peer review committee because they’re generated in accordance with the hospital’s “event reporting policy.”

According to Dubow, the policy states that its purpose is to prevent harm and to improve patient safety, the quality of care and health care outcomes, but makes no mention of peer review or a peer review organization or committee.

“Following our review of the record, we agree with the trial court that hospital did not generate the Burry event report during the course of peer review,” Dubow said. “Instead, the report, produced in accordance with hospital’s event reporting policy, is in the nature of an incident report. It is, therefore, not entitled to the confidentiality safeguards of the PRPA.”

The hospital also argued that the root cause analysis was protected by the PRPA because “‘the peer review was initiated by a professional healthcare provider,’” the root cause analysis committee. But that argument also failed because the hospital failed to hand over a list of the committee members, Dubow said.

“Because the PRPA privilege only applies to the observations of and materials produced during an evaluation by ‘professional health care providers,’ hospital’s failure to identify the members of the root cause analysis committee as ‘professional healthcare providers’ is, as the court concluded, fatal to their privilege claim,” Dubow said.

The hospital’s argument that the quality improvement medical staff peer review was covered under the PRPA also failed. The hospital had argued that because the document was prepared by Dr. Dale Anderson of an organization called North American Partners in Anesthesia (NAPA), which was a named defendant.

“We agree with the trial court that, in order for the PRPA privilege to apply to the quality improvement medical staff peer review, hospital had to prove that a ‘professional healthcare provider’ conducted it,” Dubow said. “Neither Dr. Anderson nor the NAPA defendants are ‘professional healthcare providers’ under the PRPA, and, as noted by the trial court, hospital did not proffer anything more than bald allegations to support its claim that Dr. Anderson performed the quality improvement medical staff peer review at its request.”

The hospital also failed to prove that the SSER and patient safety committee meeting minutes were subject to PRPA confidentiality because it made nothing more than a “unilateral assertion that the meeting summary is ‘privileged peer review information,’” according to Dubow.

In addition, Dubow said, the patient safety committee includes members of the community served by hospital and therefore is not exclusively composed of “‘professional healthcare providers.’”

Finally, Dubow found that Ungurian was also entitled to the unredacted credentialing files of Burry and Beyzman because the state Supreme Court ruled in the 2018 case Reginelli v. Boggs that credentialing review is not protected by the PRPA.

The ruling in Ungurian comes less than three months after a different three-judge Superior Court panel (also led by Dubow) asked the state Supreme Court in a separate case to clarify Reginelli‘s holding with regard to credentialing records.

In Leadbitter v. Keystone Anesthesia Consultants, the Superior Court sought guidance on how to handle situations in which credentialing records are generated by peer review committees.

“In light of the fact that the Supreme Court assumed that documents in a credentialing file are not peer review documents and in this case, the documents at issue are peer review documents, it would be helpful for the Supreme Court to grant allocatur and address this issue directly,” Dubow said in Leadbitter.

A petition for allowance of appeal in that case in currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Joseph Quinn Jr. of Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn in Kingston represents Ungurian. Ira Podheiser of Burns White in Pittsburgh represents the defendants. Neither could be reached for comment.

	

About HKQ Law

Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn is considered one of the top civil litigation and commercial law firms that has had the privilege of representing more families in the courtroom than any other NEPA firm. The attorneys at HKQ Law have been honored as Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, Best Law Firms by US News and World Report, and have received the AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbel. HKQ Law was recently recognized for one of the top 20 Verdicts in Pennsylvania.

The firm’s Personal Injury Team, led by Attorney Joe Quinn, Jr., has won some of the largest verdicts and settlements in the region's history. The Personal Injury Team focuses on a wide array of personal injury claims and civil litigation, including medical malpractice, auto and truck accidents, aviation accidents, unsafe vehicles, dangerous or defective products, workplace injuries (worker's compensation), construction site accidents, claim denials by insurance companies, dangerous drugs, defective children's products, nursing home abuse and neglect, and falls due to unsafe conditions (slip and fall).

Attorney Joseph A Quinn, Jr. is one of only 100 attorneys in the United States (and one of only three in Pennsylvania) honored with membership in the Inner Circle of Trial Advocates, and one of only 500 attorneys worldwide chosen to be a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. He has been a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer every year since the program began and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America every year since the publication was established in 1987. Best Lawyers also named him top personal injury attorney for Northeastern Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley. In addition, Best Lawyers, in conjunction with U.S. News & World Report, has designated HKQ a Tier 1 Best Law Firm across multiple categories in Northeastern Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley.

Since the inception of the firm, the Commercial / Corporate Team led by Attorney Allan Kluger has provided comprehensive, integrated legal services to many of Northeastern and Eastern Pennsylvania's largest corporations, businesses, banks, non-profits and institutions, handling matters involving labor and employment, wills, trusts and estate planning, estate administration, elder law, commercial transactions, residential and commercial real estate, zoning, land use and development, telecommunications, mediations and arbitrations, commercial litigation, title insurance, business planning and business succession, corporate/business structuring, employment discrimination law for employers, banking, creditor’s rights, finance, lender liability defense, covenants not to compete, construction law, mergers and acquisitions and other business matters.

Additional information can be found at www.HKQLaw.com or by calling (800) 760-1529.

				

 

As Hourigan, Kluger and Quinn addresses the concerns raised by COVID-19, the health and safety of our clients, employees and friends of the firm remain our top priority.


These are very difficult and scary times and we hope that you and your loved ones are safe and symptom free. We recognize that so many of you are understandably anxious about your health, the economic impact of this pandemic and all of the consequences of social isolation.

We also recognize that many of you are anxious about how the coronavirus is impacting the Court systems, our firm and your cases. Although all of our offices are closed, our firm has remained fully operational and we have initiated procedures that allow all of our attorneys and staff to work remotely from their homes. Each of us and our staff will respond to any emails and calls about your cases as quickly as possible.

Our Federal and State Courts have instituted significant changes in their calendars as a result of the coronavirus. Although most courthouses are closed to the public, and Hearings and Trials will be delayed for some time, there are matters that can proceed telephonically and by video. Despite these changes in the Court calendars, we are working diligently on your cases and are determined to do whatever we possibly can to assure an early and just recovery for you and your loved ones. Even under these difficult circumstances, we believe that "Nobody will work harder for you than we will."

With regard to new potential clients, we are not in a position to have an in-person new client meeting, but we will be conducting these initial meetings via phone. New potential clients should call us for a free telephone consultation at (570) 287-3000.

PROCEED TO SITE

Back to Top