Estate of Krappa v. Lyons, 822 MDA 2018
Decision Date | 23 May 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 822 MDA 2018,822 MDA 2018 |
Citation | 211 A.3d 869 |
Parties | ESTATE OF Leonard P. KRAPPA, Deceased, by and Through His Administrator, Leonard A. Krappa, and Margaret Krappa, Individually and in Her Own Right v. Mark LYONS, D.O.; Frank Piro, M.D.; Jonathan C. Sullum, M.D.; Juan C. Barrera, M.D.; James Frangos, M.D.; Louis Degennaro, M.D.; and Community Medical Center Appeal of: Community Medical Center |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Kim Kocher, Philadelphia for appellant.
Malcolm L. MacGregor, Scranton, and Rosalind T. Kaplan, Marlton, NJ, for Estate of Krappa, Krappa, L., and Krappa, M., appellees.
Gary M. Samms, Philadelphia, for Piro, appellee.
Appellant Community Medical Center appeals from the order granting the emergency motion to compel discovery1 filed by Appellees Estate of Leonard Krappa, deceased, by and through his administrator, Leonard A. Krappa, and Margaret Krappa, individually and in her own right. Appellant claims the trial court erroneously granted the emergency motion to compel, because Appellees sought the production of documents that are privileged under the Peer Review Protection Act2 (PRPA). We affirm.
The trial court opinion set forth the relevant facts of this appeal as follows:
Trial Ct. Op. 7/23/18, at 1-2 (unpaginated).
The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On July 23, 2018, the court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). The court asserted that Appellees sought to obtain credentialing materials for Drs. Piro and Sabbar and such materials are discoverable under Reginelli .
Appellant now presents one question for this Court's review:
Did the trial court err, as a matter of law, in construing Reginelli ... as announcing a blanket rule depriving all previously-protected credentialing committee materials of peer review protection, when the issue of a credentialing committee's review of physician performance was not before the Supreme Court; to the extent the Supreme Court addressed credentialing materials, it limited its discussion to that part of the credentialing process concerned only with factual review of professional qualifications, such as board certifications, and professional activities, such as service on professional organizations; and the Court reaffirmed that the peer review privilege protects the records of any review committee when one professional health care provider is evaluating the performance of another professional healthcare provider?
Appellant's Brief at 4 (quotation marks omitted).
Appellant maintains that the trial court overruled Appellant's "claim of peer review protection for the performance evaluation materials contained in the credential files for Dr. Piro and Dr. Sabbar." Id. at 11. Appellant contends that its "credentialing committee records relating to peer evaluations, performance appraisals, and responses to [National Practitioner Data Bank] queries, for the initial appointment and reappointment of Dr. Piro and Dr. Sabbar, which were generated for quality improvement purposes and maintained exclusively by the committee, fall squarely within the PRPA...." Id. at 24.
Appellant insists that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court "has consistently held that performance evaluation by a review committee constitutes protected peer review." Id. at 17. Appellant asserts that Reginelli "did not question whether performance evaluation constitutes protected peer review, but only whether the performance review in that case was conducted by a qualified review committee." Id. Further, Reginelli "did not decide to revoke peer review protection afforded to performance evaluation by a credentialing committee." Id. at 18.
To the extent Reginelli discussed the credentialing review process, Appellant states that such discussion amounts to dicta . Id. at 23. Based upon the foregoing, Appellant argues that the trial court "erred as a matter of law in construing Reginelli as announcing a blanket rule stripping peer review protection from performance evaluations by a credentialing committee." Id. at 23-24. Appellant concludes that this Court must reverse the order granting Appellees' emergency motion to compel. Id. at 25.
"Where the issue is the proper interpretation of a statute, it poses a question of law; thus, our standard of review is de novo , and the scope of our review is plenary." Yocabet , 119 A.3d at 1019 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
The PRPA provides the following evidentiary privilege:
63 P.S. § 425.4 (emphasis added).
The PRPA also defines the following pertinent terms:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leadbitter v. Keystone Anesthesia Consultants, Ltd.
...protections did not apply because the entity possessing the documents in question was a credentialing committee); Estate of Krappa v. Lyons , 211 A.3d 869, 875 (Pa. Super.) (expressing that the "PRPA's protections do not extend to the credentialing committee's materials, because this entity......
-
Fox v. Smith
... ... Heights, seek review of the orders entered on June 15, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of the First Judicial ... ...
-
Leadbitter v. Keystone Ansethesia Consultants, Ltd.
...based on Reginelli , PRPA does not shield from disclosure evaluations that a credentialing committee generates. Estate of Krappa v. Lyons , 211 A.3d 869, 875 (Pa. Super. 2019).Turning to the facts of this case and the peer review documents in question, we are constrained to follow the holdi......
-
Ungurian v. Beyzman
...from disclosure under the PRPA. Reginelli v. Boggs , 645 Pa. 470, 181 A.3d 293, 306 n.13 (2018). See also Estate of Krappa v. Lyons , 211 A.3d 869, 875 (Pa Super. 2019), appeal denied , ––– Pa. ––––, 222 A.3d 372 (2019) (Table) (citation omitted) ("The PRPA's protections do not extend to th......