Yocabet v. UPMC Presbyterian – June 2015 (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Yocabet v. UPMC Presbyterian, Nos. 569 WDA 2014, 1230 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 5, 2015)

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania consolidated two appeals made by a defendant hospital in a medical malpractice case, with the hospital claiming that the trial court erred by issuing two pretrial discovery orders that required the hospital to turn over to the plaintiffs certain materials. The first order found that a set of materials was not protected from discovery by the peer review privilege, while the second order found that another set was not protected by the attorney-client privilege. The appeals court affirmed the first order and reversed and remanded the second order for an in camera review of the materials.

The first set of materials consisted of documents and interviews submitted by the hospital to the state department of health, on behalf of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to conduct an investigation into the hospital’s transplant program. The hospital argued that these documents were confidential under the state’s peer review statute, but the appeals court disagreed because the state department of health is not a professional health care provider and cannot conduct peer review.

The second set of materials consisted of documents, communications and other information relating to a hospital board meeting. The hospital argued that it was engaging in peer review during the board meeting because the information discussed at this meeting pertained to the transplant program and also that the attorney-client privilege applied because one or more attorneys attended the board meeting so the board could obtain legal advice.

The court concluded that the attorney-client privilege can apply to a meeting of the governing board of an organization and that the board of directors of a professional health care provider can conduct peer review. Therefore, the appeals court ordered that the requested documents from the second set of materials be reviewed in camera to determine whether and to what extent the privileges apply to any of the materials.