Manley v. Heather Hill, Inc., No. 2007-G-2765 ( Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2007)

The Court of Appeals of Ohio upheld a lower court order directing a hospital to produce documents for in camera review to determine if any such document is "a report of an incident involving an injury…that is prepared by or for the use of a peer review committee," and thus protected from discovery under the state peer review statute.

The estate of a deceased patient filed a complaint against the hospital alleging that the hospital was negligent in its care of the patient. The patient allegedly suffered injuries, including a fractured leg and hip, which resulted from a fall. As a result of the fall, the patient required surgery and subsequently developed an infection which led to the amputation of her leg and eventually her death.

During the case, the patient's estate sought discovery of any "incident reports" relating to the patient and the identity of other patients who sustained injuries at the hospital. The court observed that simply because a document is referred to as an "incident report" or describes an injury or incident does not necessarily mean that it falls within the statutory definition of "incident report." Additionally, there is nothing in the Ohio peer review statutes that forbids a trial court from holding an in camera review to determine whether the documents are privileged.

In this case, because it was unclear whether the documents sought were prepared for use by a peer committee, the court held that an in camera review was appropriate. Similar reasoning was employed to conclude that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the production of other patients' injury reports with the names redacted.