Watkins v. Good Samaritan Hosp. of Cincinnati Ohio — Oct. 2016 (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Watkins v. Good Samaritan Hosp. of Cincinnati Ohio
No. C-160194 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016)

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Ohio reversed and remanded the judgment of a trial court, which had granted a motion compelling a hospital to produce certain documents that were arguably protected from discovery by peer review privilege.

The plaintiffs, a husband and wife with their newborn son, sued the hospital and physicians who assisted in the delivery of the baby.  The plaintiffs in discovery requested certain personnel records from the hospital.  The hospital contended that the documents were protected by peer review privilege.  To invoke the protection of peer review privilege, a litigant must show the existence of a peer review committee and that the requested documents fall within the scope of such a committee.  A peer review committee, as defined by state law, includes any type of committee that conducts hearing processes on recommendations, actions, and quality review.

The court noted that the hospital sufficiently demonstrated both that a peer review committee did exist at the hospital and that the records sought by the plaintiffs were within the scope of the peer review committee.  The court held that the hospital correctly pointed out that documents “involving competence as well as professional qualifications of the health care providers in question[,]” although not sufficient to trigger the privilege itself, did rise to the level of potentially privileged documents under state law that should have required an in camera examination of their privileged status by the trial court.

Because the trial court did not initiate this discretionary, in camera proceeding at the behest of the hospital before compelling discovery of potentially privileged documents, the court of appeals reversed the decision and remanded the case for further consideration.