Knapik v. Mary Hitchcock Mem’l Hosp. (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Knapik v. Mary Hitchcock Mem’l Hosp., No. 5:12-CV-175 (D. Vt. Dec. 12, 2014)

The United States District Court for the District of Vermont denied a former resident’s motion for contempt and sanctions against a hospital for withholding documents. Plaintiff, who had been in a residency program at defendant hospital, alleged that she was wrongfully terminated by the hospital for whistleblowing activity which involved her sending a letter the hospital had sent to a different resident that was critical about that resident’s performance to the fellowship program that the resident had applied to as the plaintiff resident was aware that the information had not been disclosed to the fellowship program. During discovery, the former resident requested, and a court ordered, the hospital to disclose internal e-mails regarding certain medical residents’ employment records and feedback about their performances. The hospital provided some, but not all, requested documentation, arguing and that the information that was not provided was privileged under the state’s quality assurance and peer review privileges. The former resident then sought sanctions against the hospital for failing to produce the documents. Ultimately, the missing documentation was submitted to the court for in camera review to determine whether they were privileged.

Following in camera inspection of the e-mails, the court held that the e-mails were covered by the quality assurance privilege because they related to performance feedback and evaluations of medical residents by peers and advisors. The court stated that the privilege protects both formal and informal feedback and evaluations, such as e-mails, from disclosure. The former resident argued that one particular e-mail should be disclosed because a physician discussed it with her and thereby waived the privilege. The court rejected this argument because the privilege is held by the hospital, not its employees, hence only the hospital is able to waive it. In addition, due to the privileged nature of the documents, the court also declined to impose sanctions against the hospital.