Newborn v. Christiana Psychiatric Servs., P.A — Nov. 2016 (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Newborn v. Christiana Psychiatric Servs., P.A.
C.A. No. N16C-05-047 VLM (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2016)

The Superior Court of Delaware found that the state’s peer review privilege did not apply to the investigative files of a state agency since the agency received the initial complaint regarding a psychiatrist and acted without the involvement of the state medical board.

The psychiatrist began treating a patient, but when he entered into a romantic relationship with her, the physician-patient relationship was ended.  After a few months, the romantic relationship also ended; however, the psychiatrist allegedly continued to prescribe medication to his former patient for over 20 years, and when he provided her with a new medication to replace her Prozac, she suffered emotional side effects and subsequently committed suicide.  The chief medical examiner investigated the circumstances of the patient’s death and filed a report with the state Division of Professional Regulation (“DPR”), which investigated to determine whether there would be further proceedings against the psychiatrist.  After the investigation concluded, the investigative file was sent to the state Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which filed two formal complaints with the state Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline (“Medical Board”).  However, the psychiatrist passed away, and there was no further action.  The patient’s estate filed a medical malpractice action against the psychiatrist, and issued a subpoena to the DPR, as a non-party, among others, requesting the investigative files of the DPR.

The defendants moved to quash the subpoena arguing that since the DPR is a peer review organization, it is protected by the peer review privilege.

The court found that there may be situations when the peer review privilege applies to investigative files of the DPR, such as when the DPR acts as a mandatory investigative arm of the Medical Board.  However, in this case, DPR received the initial complaint from the chief medical examiner, and forwarded the investigative file to the state DOJ, so the matter never went to a peer group or the Medical Board.  Thus, the court found that the investigative file was not subject to the state peer review privilege.  The court ordered part of the investigative file to be disclosed to the patient’s estate, and part withheld on other grounds.