New Case Further Defines Limits of Pa.'s Peer Review Privilege Law
This year, in Estate of Krappa v. Lyons, 2019 Pa. Super. 168 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019), decided May 7, the Pennsylvania Superior Court extended the exclusion to the files of a hospital's own credentialing committee.
July 08, 2019 at 12:47 PM
6 minute read
Another Pennsylvania case has tackled what information falls within the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act (PRPA), 63 P.S. 425.1, et seq. The reader may recall that last year the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Reginelli v. Boggs, 181 A.3d 293 (Pa. 2018), excluded the personnel files of a hospital's contractor from the PRPA's scope. This year, in Estate of Krappa v. Lyons, 2019 Pa. Super. 168 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019), decided May 7, the Pennsylvania Superior Court extended the exclusion to the files of a hospital's own credentialing committee.
Reginelli was a medical malpractice case. The hospital in the case, Monongahela Valley Hospital, had contracted with UPMC Emergency Medicine, Inc. (UEM) for administrative and staffing services in the hospital's emergency department. The plaintiff, Eleanor Reginelli, arrived at the hospital by ambulance with stomach pains. She was treated by Dr. Marcellus Boggs who, Reginelli alleged, failed to diagnose a heart problem. The plaintiff's counsel filed a motion seeking from the hospital Boggs' performance file prepared and maintained by his ER supervisor, Dr. Brenda Walther. Both Boggs and Walther were UEM employees.
In making its decision, the court weighed the “laudable goal” of the PRPA (i.e., maintaining high standards in the medical profession by using confidentiality and immunity to improve the quality of peer reviews) against facilitating the “search for truth” (i.e., interpreting evidentiary privileges narrowly to permit a more complete discovery exchange). Though the analysis is far more nuanced than the following, suffice it to say for an article about a different case that the court granted the plaintiff's motion. Though the ruling was focused on the personnel files of a hospital's contractor, predictions at the time foresaw the decision's potential to further narrow the application of the PRPA to certain internal files.
The newer case, Estate of Krappa, involves allegations related to a delay in a cancer diagnosis. Though the complaint includes 13 counts against numerous defendants, the primary issue is the interpretation of CT scan results by Dr. Frank Piro. As with Reginelli, the Superior Court was called to decide whether the lower court properly granted a motion to compel discovery. The records at issue, however, were not those of a contractor, but the internal records of a Community Medical Center's own credentialing committee. Three days before trial, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion to compel the production of complete and unredacted credentialing materials used to both appoint and reappoint Piro and another doctor, Dr. David Sabbar, to their professional roles.
After describing the PRPA and certain of its defined terms, the Superior Court analyzed the Reginelli decision. Specifically, it repeated the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's finding that the PRPA limits the evidentiary privilege for the proceedings and documents of review committees as distinguished from review organizations. According to the Reginelli decision, the former performs peer review while the latter simply reviews professional qualifications of current and prospective staff members. Critically, review organizations do not engage in peer review. Although the Reginelli decision categorized credentialing committees as review organizations that do not enjoy the PRPA's evidentiary provision, Community Medical Center's attorneys argued that such a categorization was merely dicta. The Superior Court disagreed.
The lower court performed an in camera review of the materials sought by the plaintiff's emergency motion and found that the files of Piro and Sabbar contained solely credentialing materials for those two physicians. The Superior Court performed its own review of the relevant records and confirmed the lower court's finding. It concluded further that, “the materials in the doctors' personnel files are generated and maintained by the appellant's credentialing committee. The PRPA's protections do not extend to the credentialing committee's materials, because this entity does not qualify as a 'review committee'” as that term was interpreted and discussed in the Reginelli decision. With that, the plaintiff was entitled to the two doctors' files.
As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court phrased it in its Reginelli decision, the PRPA has a laudable goal. Specifically, the Pennsylvania General Assembly made a public policy determination to foster open and honest discussions with health care facilities' review organizations so as to increase the “use of peer review groups by giving protection to individuals and data who report to any review group,” see 63 P.S. Section 425.1, Historical and Statutory Notes. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Robinson v. Magovern, 83 F.R.D. 79 (W.D. Pa. 1979), described three goals of the PRPA thusly: “improve the quality of care rendered; reduce morbidity and mortality; and keep within reasonable bounds the costs of health care.”
For hospitals across the commonwealth, Reginelli and Estate of Krappa have brought into stark relief that the means of accomplishing the foregoing goals are not without bounds. In particular, hospitals must recognize that there are countervailing forces limiting the scope of the PRPA, including the judiciary's interest in promoting a thorough exchange of discovery. None of this is to say that the courts can simply substitute their public policy determinations for those of the General Assembly. But it is to say that the courts will look carefully at the specific discovery sought, interpret the language of the PRPA narrowly, and potentially conclude that the discovery falls outside the confines of the statute.
Some may argue that these decisions will chill frank participation in peer review processes. Granted, they may give certain participants and organizations pause. However, it is important to keep in mind that the decisions in both Reginelli and Estate of Krappa are detailed and well-reasoned. They essentially spell out to hospitals what information is likely to fall within or without the boundaries of the PRPA. Rather than panic, hospitals and health care professionals will be better served by familiarizing themselves with the courts' analyses in Reginelli and Estate of Krappa. The Reginelli decision in particular sets forth a discussion that serves as a road map of how a court is likely to apply the PRPA to a discovery request. With such an understanding, health care professionals can understand how different aspects of their files are likely to be categorized and health care facilities can clean up their peer review policies and procedures, as necessary, to better accomplish what is intended.
—Andrew Stein, an associate at Lamb McErlane, who focuses on health and business law, assisted with preparing this article.
Vasilios J. Kalogredis is chairman of Lamb McErlane's health law department. He represents many medical and dental groups and thousands of individual physicians and dentists.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250