Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 Grant Cnty.
| Decision Date | 11 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 86842–5.,86842–5. |
| Citation | 298 P.3d 741,177 Wash.2d 221 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Gaston CORNU–LABAT, Respondent, v. HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 GRANT COUNTY d/b/a Quincy Valley Hospital, Appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jerome R. Aiken, Attorney at Law, Peter McGillis Ritchie, Meyer, Fluegge & Tenney, P.S., Yakima, WA, for Appellant.
Brendan Wesley Donckers, Breskin Johnson & Townsend, PLLC, David Scott Mann, Gendler & Mann LLP, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Michael J. Reitz, Attorney at Law, Midland, MI, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Freedom Foundation.
Michael J. Reitz, Attorney at Law, Midland, MI, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington COAlition for Open Government.
Greg Montgomery, Ogden Murphy Wallace, P.L.L.C., Madeline Engel, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Hospital Association.
Greg Montgomery, Ogden Murphy Wallace, P.L.L.C., Madeline Engel, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Association of Washington Public Meetings Act.
[177 Wash.2d 225]¶ 1 While employed as a physician at Quincy Valley Medical Center (QVMC), Gaston Cornu–Labat was the subject of several complaints that raised doubts as to his competency to practice medicine. QVMC conducted two investigations that ended afterthe charges against Dr. Cornu–Labat were not substantiated. Nevertheless, QVMC requested that Dr. Cornu–Labat be psychologically evaluated and ended the doctor's employment when he failed to consult the recommended provider. Dr. Cornu–Labat filed a Public Records Act (PRA) (chapter 42.56 RCW) request asking for records related to the hospital's investigations. QVMC claimed the documents were exempt from disclosure under RCW 4.24.250 (), RCW 70.41.200 (), or RCW 70.44.062 ().
¶ 2 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Cornu–Labat, holding none of the PRA exemptions invoked by QVMC applied. The court concluded that the records of a peer review committee that contained nonphysicians could not qualify for the exemption in RCW 4.24.250. This was error. We remand because questions of material fact remain as to whether the records at issue were prepared for a regularly constituted peer review body under RCW 4.24.250. Questions also remain as to whether any records were generated during a confidential meeting of agents of the QVMC board concerning Dr. Cornu–Labat's clinical or staff privileges. We affirm the trial court's conclusion that the exemption for quality improvement committees, RCW 70.41.200, does not apply under these facts.
¶ 3 QVMC is a public hospital district. A public hospital district is a municipal corporation. RCW 70.44.010. As such, QVMC is a “local agency” for purposes of the PRA. RCW 42.56.010(1). The hospital is very small. At the time of the events pertinent to this case, the medical staff consisted of four physicians with voting rights and two nonvoting nurse practitioners. The medical staff is governed by QVMC's bylaws. Article VIII of the bylaws delineates a procedure for corrective or disciplinary action. Corrective action taken under article VIII must be authorized by the medical staff. QVMC also has a disruptive behavior policy under which the hospital administrator or chief of staff can act unilaterally.
¶ 4 Respondent, Gaston Cornu–Labat, was a surgeon employed by QVMC from February 2007 until January 2010. While serving as president of the QVMC medical staff, Dr. Cornu–Labat enlisted a consultant to conduct a hospital improvement project. Dr. Cornu–Labat openly challenged the administration on a number of issues. His relationship with the administration and staff became strained, which he believes led to a series of strange incidents at the hospital and ultimately his dismissal.
¶ 5 The first relevant incident occurred on the night of July 23, 2009. Dr. Cornu–Labat was conversing with a nurse who told him she felt uncomfortable with the interaction. Dr. Cornu–Labat left the conversation and self-reported the incident to hospital administrators. The nurse stated she smelled alcohol on Dr. Cornu–Labat and that he seemed aggressive and impatient during their conversation. Dr. Mark Vance, the vice-president of the medical staff, and Mr. Mehdi Merred, the hospital administrator, interviewed four witnesses regarding the matter. Dr. Cornu–Labat was also interviewed. He was informed the interview was being conducted in accordance with article VIII of the hospital's bylaws. The investigators concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of intoxication.
¶ 6 In August 2009, several other complaints were made to hospital administration regarding Dr. Cornu–Labat's competency to practice medicine and his behavior at work. It was alleged the doctor was uncharacteristically arriving late, rescheduling patients without explanation, having patients wait while he made lengthy phone calls, failing to take patients' vital signs, neglecting his hygiene, and intimidating staff members. The complaints were accompanied by requests that the doctor be suspended immediately.
¶ 7 In response, Dr. Vance and Mr. Merred met with the entire medical staff to determine if an investigation should be conducted.The medical staff authorized an investigation. It was led by Mr. Merred, Dr. Vance, and Mr. Anthony Gonzalez, the board commissioner in charge of personnel. Dr. Cornu–Labat was interviewed on August 4, 2009. Like before, he was informed the interview was conducted in accordance with article VIII of the hospital's bylaws. The complaints were not routed to the hospital's Quality Improvement Committee, a specialized committee that manages the hospital's “ Organizational Quality Plan.”
¶ 8 QVMC did not uncover enough evidence to substantiate the complaints during its investigation. On August 6, 2009, Dr. Cornu–Labat was presented a letter stating he had been cleared of all charges of unprofessional behavior. Nevertheless hospital administrators “remained concerned” for him. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 88. QVMC placed Dr. Cornu–Labat on paid leave and referred him to the Washington Physician's Health Program (WPHP). QVMC informed Dr. Cornu–Labat it would await a recommendation from WPHP as to his fitness to practice. Dr. Cornu–Labat refused to visit WPHP and instead sought examinations from other psychologists. He was later dismissed from QVMC for his failure to follow QVMC's requests.
¶ 9 Dr. Cornu–Labat filed a PRA request on July 29, 2009, seeking disclosure of records relating to the first investigation. QVMC denied the request, initially claiming that the hospital was not a public agency subject to the PRA or, in the alternative, that the records were “investigative” and exempt under RCW 42.56.240. Dr. Cornu–Labat made a second PRA request for documents relating to both investigations on August 11, 2009. QVMC did not respond. A third request was made on August 26, 2009, and a fourth on January 5, 2010. QVMC responded that the requested records were exempt from disclosure as quality assurance and peer review materials.
¶ 10 On March 8, 2010, Dr. Cornu–Labat filed suit in Grant County Superior Court seeking an order requiring QVMC to disclose the requested records and requesting penalties and attorney fees under RCW 42.56.550(4). Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Dr. Cornu–Labat's motion and denied QVMC's motion. It ruled the PRA exemptions cited by QVMC did not apply because the investigations into Dr. Cornu–Labat's conduct were conducted by “ ad hoc investigative teams which included non-physicians.” CP at 375. The court held under RCW 4.24.250, “the peer review committee must be regularly constituted and must consist only of the professional peers of the member being reviewed.” Id. After QVMC's motion for reconsideration was denied, QVMC appealed. The Court of Appeals, Division Three, certified the case to this court pursuant to RCW 2.06.030 and RAP 4.4. This court accepted review.
¶ 11 Public agency actions challenged under the PRA are reviewed de novo. RCW 42.56.550(3). An appellate court stands in the same position as the trial court when the record consists entirely of documentary evidence and affidavits. Spokane Police Guild v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wash.2d 30, 35–36, 769 P.2d 283 (1989). The reviewing court is not bound by the trial court's factual findings. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wash.2d 243, 253, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) (PAWS ). But, where a case was decided as a matter of summary judgment below, it may be appropriate to remand for resolution of a factual question. Id.
¶ 12 The PRA is a “strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records.” Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 127, 580 P.2d 246 (1978). It “requires all state and local agencies to disclose any public record upon request, unless the record falls within certain very specific exemptions.” PAWS, 125 Wash.2d at 250, 884 P.2d 592. QVMC contends the privileges it invokes should be liberally construed because there is no underlying litigation demanding broad discovery. Appellant's Opening Br. at 18–19. But the PRA explicitly declares its disclosure provisions “shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed.” RCW 42.56.030. Thus, QVMC's assertion is untenable. The requested documents are exempt from disclosure only if they fall under one of the specific, narrowly construed exemptions.
¶ 13 Hospital internal review mechanisms are critical to maintaining quality health care. SeeRCW 7.71.010; see also Coburn v. Seda, 101 Wash.2d 270, 275, 677 P.2d 173 (198...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Evans
... ... [298 P.3d 727] 2 We reject Evans's arguments and affirm the Court ... Dyer v. Middle Kittitas Irrigation Dist., 56 Wash. 488, 495, 106 P. 203 (1910) (The real ... ...
-
Kittitas Cnty., Corp. v. Sky Allphin, Abc Holdings, Inc.
...the contrary, "agencies may not inquire into the identity of the requestor or the reason for the request." Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 , 177 Wash.2d 221, 240, 298 P.3d 741 (2013).¶ 53 Unlike civil discovery disputes, PRA disputes can be resolved only in an independent cause of action, ......
-
Segura v. Cabrera
...statute violates the principle that we interpret statutes to give effect to all the language used. Cornu–Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 Grant County, 177 Wash.2d 221, 231, 298 P.3d 741 (2013). ¶ 46 The final principle of statutory construction, upon which we should rely is this: the legislature......
-
State v. McCarthy
...to give effect to all the language used so that no portion is rendered meaningless or unnecessary. Cornu–Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County, 177 Wash.2d 221, 231, 298 P.3d 741 (2013) (citing State v. J.P., 149 Wash.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003)). ¶ 24 The Department determined tha......
-
Table of Cases
...170 Wn.2d 1016 (2010): 6.7(1)(b), 8.3, 10.2(3)(c)(ii), 10.2(3)(c)(iii) Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 Grant Cnty, 177 Wn.2d. 221, 298 P.3d 741 (2013): 4.1, 6.7(1)(a), 7.3(1), 11.5(3), 11.5(3), 18.4(3), 22.5, 22.5 Cowles Publ'g Co. v. City of Spokane, 69 Wn.App. 678, 849 P.2d 1271, review ......
-
§18.4 Attorney Fees
...not to any portion of the requested documents found to be exempt." Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 of Grant Cnty., 177 Wn.2d 221, 240, 298 P.3d 741 (2013) (quoting Limstrom II, 136 Wn.2d at A court should also award fees incurred in "vindicating" a requestor's "right to receive a response.......
-
§4.1 What Is An "Agency" Covered By The Pra?
...unless the record falls within certain very specific exemptions." Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 Grant Cnty., 177 Wn.2d 221, 229, 298 P.3d 741 (2013) (citing Prog. Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash. (PAWS II), 125 Wn.2d 243, 253, 884 P.2d 592 (1994)). Thus, any "agency" in the state o......
-
§7.3 Other Rules of Construction
...used so that no portion is rendered meaningless or unnecessary." Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 Grant Cnty., 177 Wn.2d 221, 231, 298 P.3d 741 (2013). In Cornu-Labat, the trial court narrowly construed the peer-review exemption, RCW 42.56.250, to apply only when physicians investigate othe......
-
Washington State Register, Issue 21-04
...at the same session of the Legislature") (emphasis added). 66 RCW 80.28.405. 67 See Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 177 Wn.2d 221, 232, 298 P.3d 741 (2013) ("If, after looking to the dictionary, the meaning of a term is still unclear, its meaning may be gleaned from related statutes which......