Brugaletta v. Garcia — Feb. 2017 (Summary)

NEW JERSEY PATIENT SAFETY ACT PRIVILEGE

Brugaletta v. Garcia
Docket No. A-4342-15T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 6, 2017)

The Superior Court of New Jersey reversed a lower court’s order compelling the production of hospital documents, holding that the documents were privileged under the New Jersey Patient Safety Act.  The case arose out of a complaint filed by a former patient, alleging that the hospital and various providers had negligently diagnosed and treated her condition.

Under the New Jersey Patient Safety Act, hospitals are required to create a safety plan and to establish a dedicated patient safety committee.  These committees are intended to provide processes for analyzing harmful events, including so-called serious preventable adverse events (“SPAEs”).  To encourage hospitals to comply with these obligations, the Patient Safety Act attaches a privilege to specific kinds of information generated by hospitals when investigating and reporting adverse events to regulators.  In this case, the defendant-hospital argued that the Patient Safety Act privileged one of the documents in its possession, which was characterized as an “Event Detail History with All Tasks.”

The lower court determined that even though the hospital had acted in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Act, the document revealed that the patient had suffered a separate SPAE.  Because the hospital had failed to report this other SPAE, the lower court ordered the hospital to disclose the portion of the document that described the SPAE (even though it revealed aspects of the hospital’s self-critical analysis).

On appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey sided with the hospital.  It explained that the privilege for a self-critical analysis exists independently from a hospital’s compliance with the reporting obligations.  In particular, it concluded that the self-critical analysis privilege did not depend on reporting SPAEs to the state Department of Health.  It held that the trial court erred in compelling the hospital to disclose the documents and reversed the lower court’s order.