Klaine v. So. Ill. Hosp. Servs. (Summary)

Peer Review Privilege

Klaine v. So. Ill. Hosp. Servs., No. 5-13-0356 (Ill. App. Ct. Fifth Dist. Aug. 6, 2014)

The Appellate Court of Illinois Fifth District affirmed a circuit court’s discovery order regarding documents in a malpractice lawsuit, while imposing a few modifications.

A patient filed a medical malpractice claim against a surgeon after the patient’s colon was perforated during a gallbladder removal procedure. In filing his claims against the surgeon, the patient also sued the hospital, alleging that the hospital was negligent in credentialing the surgeon. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel certain documents for discovery, but the hospital responded that such information was privileged. A circuit court found that while most of the documents were privileged, a few exhibits were not. The court denied the hospital’s motion to reconsider, to which the hospital appealed.

The appellate court found first that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an exhibit that details three applications for staff privileges, as the court may have reasonably found relevant evidence from the information within the applications. Also, because the hospital did not raise this issue until the motion to reconsider, the court found that the issue had been forfeited. The hospital also argued that the applications within this exhibit were privileged under the Data Collection Act. After a textual analysis of the act, the court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling, determining that the legislature had not designated an explicit protection of applications for staff privileges.

After determining that the applications for staff privileges were not protected, the court then looked to examine whether specific information within the applications should be redacted. The court held that certain references to an external peer review issued by a consulting company were to be redacted, as the information was protected under the Medical Studies Act. However, the court chose not to redact references to the National Practitioner Data Bank, because such information is permitted through state discovery rules. The court also held that the information within the applications regarding treatment of patients is permitted in judicial and administrative proceedings under HIPAA, and therefore was not to be redacted. Additionally, the hospital argued that information provided by the surgeon about his own medical condition in his application should be protected under the physician-patient privilege. The court denied this reasoning, as it is the surgeon’s own assessment.

The hospital also argued that an exhibit containing the surgeon’s procedure summaries was protected under the Medical Studies Act. The court affirmed the circuit court’s order that these documents be provided, determining that the summaries provided raw data rather than physicians’ evaluations.