Grenier v. Stamford Hosp — July 2016 (Summary)

FEDERAL PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Grenier v. Stamford Hosp.
No. 3:14-cv-0970 (VLB) (D. Conn. July 20, 2016)

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut recognized a federal peer review privilege in a suit asserting claims for medical malpractice and violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) brought against a hospital and others by the estate of a deceased patient. 

The estate filed a motion to compel the production of documents and responses to interrogatories, which the hospital argued were protected by the Connecticut peer review privilege.  The court first found that the facts of the case and the nature of the claims warranted recognition of a peer review privilege.  According to the court, federal courts will not recognize a peer review privilege in civil rights or antitrust actions, but with claims involving federal law “which touch upon medical malpractice,” such as EMTALA, there has been a recent trend to recognize a federal peer review privilege.  The court also indicated that this recognition would serve public and private interests because it encourages the peer review process, which is designed to give physicians a safe place to fully disclose and evaluate their work with their peers in a constructive setting.  The court also noted that the peer review materials that were sought were available from other sources and the peer review privilege is widely recognized. On this latter point, the court observed that “[a]ll 50 States and the District of Columbia recognize some form of medical peer review privilege.”  Furthermore, enactment of the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, and its strong privilege protections for peer review information, evidences a “shift in congressional policy aimed at providing broad protection for peer review work product in an effort to improve patient safety and quality of care.”