Zachary Arbitman of Youman & Caputo.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in Leadbitter v. Keystone Anesthesia Consultants, No. 19 WAP 2020, (Pa. Aug. 17, 2021), has been lauded by the defense bar as a complete and total victory. But that is not the case. While Leadbitter certainly refined some aspects of the watershed opinion it issued in Reginelli v. Boggs, credentialing information is still very much in play for plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions.
In Reginelli, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that credentialing files are not categorically privileged under the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act (PRPA). In so ruling, the Reginelli court held that “although ‘individuals reviewing the professional qualifications or activities of its medical staff or applicants for admission thereto,’ 63 P.S. Section 425.2, are defined as a type of ‘review organization,’ such individuals are not ‘review committees’ entitled to claim the PRPA’s evidentiary privilege in its Section 425.4.” Indeed, the court went further, “review of a physician’s credentials for purposes of membership (or continued membership) on a hospital’s medical staff is markedly different from reviewing the ‘quality and efficiency of service ordered or performed’ by a physician when treating patients.”
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
