Lindsey v. Butterfield Health Care II, Inc. — Feb. 2017 (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Lindsey v. Butterfield Health Care II, Inc.
Nos. 2-16-0042 & 2-16-0268 cons. (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 9, 2017)

The Appellate Court of Illinois for the Second District affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a nursing home had to produce a report and witness statements pertaining to a patient fall because the documents were not privileged.

Following a fall in a nursing home, a patient brought a claim for negligence against the nursing home and sought to discover all documents relating to the investigation of her fall.  The nursing home objected to producing a report and witness statements, claiming that the documents were privileged under the Quality Assurance Act and the Medical Studies Act because the documents were prepared for the Facility’s Quality Assurance Committee.

The trial court ruled against the nursing home, finding that the documents were simply factual and contained no recommendations for improvement.  When the nursing home failed to abide by the order, the trial court held it in contempt.

On appeal, the court considered whether the report and the witness statements were privileged pursuant to the Quality Assurance Act and the Medical Studies Act.  The court rejected the nursing home’s argument that the documents were privileged because they were eventually reviewed by the Quality Assurance Committee.  Specifically, the court found that such reasoning would allow the nursing home to circumvent established Illinois precedent and keep everything privileged except a patient’s own medical records.  Rather, the court concluded that Illinois precedent established that while documents initiated, created, prepared, or generated by a peer review committee are privileged, documents that are created in the ordinary course of business or for later corrective action are not.  The court pointed out that both the report and the witness statements were prepared prior to any peer review committee meeting.

The court did vacate the lower court’s contempt citation, finding that the nursing home’s refusal to comply with the discovery orders was undertaken in good faith merely as a means to seek appellate review of its unsuccessful assertion of privilege.  The court remanded the case back to the lower court, affirming in part and vacating in part.