Hill v. Wallach
| Decision Date | 19 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | ED110232 |
| Parties | KRISTINE HILL AND DENNIS HILL, Relators, v. HONORABLE STANLEY J. WALLACH, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County 19SL-CC02746 Honorable Stanley J. Wallach
Kristine Hill and Dennis Hill (Relators) filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition with this Court, seeking to prohibit enforcement of the December 8, 2021 Order (Order) by Judge Stanley J Wallach (Respondent). The Order granted a Motion to Compel filed by Mercy Rehabilitation Hospital - St. Louis, LLC (Mercy) in the action of Kristine Hill and Dennis Hill v Mercy Rehabilitation Hospital - St. Louis, LLC, et al. pending in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Case No 19SL-CC02746.
The Order required Relators, the plaintiffs in the underlying case, to produce all documents regarding counsel's settlement negotiations and release (settlement documents) from an automobile accident involving Ms. Hill that occurred after the incident giving rise to the pending litigation. Relators contend the settlement documents are protected work product and Mercy made no showing pursuant to Rule 56.01(b)(5)[1] that it had a substantial need to discover them, or that any probative value of those materials outweighed the highly sensitive and likely prejudicial nature of an attorney's settlement negotiations and the resulting settlement agreement. We previously issued a Preliminary Order in Prohibition. Respondent filed an answer and suggestions in opposition. In the interest of justice, we dispense with further briefing and oral argument pursuant to Rule 84.24(i). The Preliminary Order in Prohibition is made permanent.
On July 9, 2019, Relators filed a lawsuit against defendants Mercy and Stryker Corporation (Stryker), alleging, inter alia, that Mercy was negligent in failing to properly inspect, maintain or fix the hospital bed that malfunctioned and collapsed on Ms. Hill causing her severe back and spine injuries while she was a patient at Mercy on July 10, 2017.[2] On January 18, 2018, Ms. Hill was in a car accident that exacerbated her back pain. She settled her claim against the at-fault driver for a monetary payment subject to a confidentiality provision. Consequently, Mercy filed an affirmative defense for a reduction of the amount of any settlement from any other tortfeasor under Section 537.060, RSMo.[3]
On May 24, 2021, Mercy sought the following discovery:
Relators objected that the requests were overbroad, premature, duplicative, and sought information protected by the work product doctrine. Relators produced a privilege log as evidence to support their claim that the settlement documents were work product. During Ms. Hill's deposition, Relators' counsel made a record that the settlement release of the auto claim was subject to a confidentiality provision.
Relators produced all non-privileged documents related to the auto accident, including the fire department accident report, EMS report, as well as all medical and treatment records in their possession. Ms. Hill also executed every requested medical authorization, releasing all of her medical and mental health records to the defendants.
On October 20, 2021, Mercy filed its motion to compel production of the settlement documents possessed by Relators' counsel. Mercy argued that during her deposition, Ms. Hill could not recall what part(s) of her body she claimed were injured in her 2018 car accident and testified she "did not know" if her back was injured in the accident. Mercy further asserted that Relators' counsel's correspondence with third parties (the other driver's counsel or insurer) was not protected work product because these documents were prepared in avoidance - rather than in anticipation - of litigation. Mercy also claimed the settlement documents were necessary to properly plead and prove the existence of the settlement, including the precise amount of the settlement, in order to obtain the reduction or credit as an affirmative defense permitted by Section 537.060.
In their response, Relators argued that Ms. Hill already provided all the relevant and discoverable facts and records about the accident and settlement. While Relators agreed Mercy may be entitled to discover the amount of the settlement for the purpose of a reduction, they merely disagreed on when they were required to disclose the information. Relators asserted that Mercy was only entitled to the discovery if a monetary judgment is entered in their favor because that is when Mercy's reduction would be applied by the trial court pursuant to Section 537.060.
In reply, Mercy claimed Ms. Hill's medical records demonstrated a consistent improvement in her condition following the July 2017 hospital bed incident but then worsened following the January 2018 accident. Specifically, Mercy asserted that certain injuries, such as urinary dysfunction or immobility, became permanent; thus rendering her medical records and settlement documents in that case relevant and admissible at trial here.
On December 8, 2021, Respondent granted Mercy's motion to compel Relators to produce the confidential settlement release and settlement negotiations from the January 2018 automobile accident claim. Relators filed their Petition for Writ of Prohibition, arguing that an attorney's settlement documents are protected work product and Mercy made no showing of a substantial need for them. This Court issued a Preliminary Order in Prohibition. Respondent's Answer and Suggestions in Opposition claimed the settlement documents were discoverable because they were relevant to the issues of causation and damages, and they were not protected work product, thus Respondent was not required to establish a "substantial need" pursuant to Rule 56.01(b)(5).
Relators sought to prohibit enforcement of the entire December 8, 2021 Order compelling discovery; however, the only arguments presented here address Relators' counsel's settlement negotiation communications with the claims agent for the automobile injury claim, and the settlement release itself.
Prohibition is a discretionary writ that is limited to "fairly rare" situations; it only issues to prevent an abuse of judicial discretion, to prevent exercise of extra-jurisdictional power, or to avoid irreparable harm to a party, or there is an issue of law that will likely escape review on appeal and cause considerable hardship or expense to the aggrieved party. State ex rel. Helms v Rathert, 624 S.W.3d 159, 163 (Mo. banc 2021) (quoting State ex rel. Schwarz Pharma, Inc. v. Dowd, 432 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Mo. banc 2014)); see also State ex rel. Rosenberg v. Jarrett, 233 S.W.3d 757, 760 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) ().
Prohibition is particularly appropriate where the trial court orders "production of work product when there has been no showing, as required by Rule 56.01(b)[(5)] 'that a party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the material by other means.'" State ex rel. Mitchell Humphrey & Co. v. Provaznik, 854 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (quoting Enke v. Anderson, 733 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Mo. App. S.D. 1987)).
The crux of the issue before this Court is the discoverability of settlement documents from Ms. Hill's 2018 car accident in this action for her injuries resulting from the 2017 hospital bed incident. The question is whether the settlement documents are protected work product.
Our analysis of the discoverability of the settlement documents at issue here begins with the fundamental evidentiary rule in Missouri and other jurisdictions that "evidence of settlement agreements is not admissible." Mengwasser v. Anthony Kempker Trucking, Inc., 312 S.W.3d 368, 376 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).
"This is because settlement agreements tend to be highly prejudicial and, thus, should be kept from the jury unless a clear and cogent reason exists for admitting a particular settlement agreement." Id.
State ex rel. Dixon Oaks Health Ctr., Inc. v. Long, 929 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996) (quoting State v. Beatty, 770 S.W.2d 387, 391 (Mo App. S.D. 1989)). One such exception is the attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential communications between an attorney and the client. See State ex rel. Kilroy Was Here, LLC v. Moriarty, 633 S.W.3d 406, 413 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). "[The Missouri Supreme Court] has spoken clearly of the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege," and the need to eliminate any interference with it:
. . . . The relationship and the continued existence of the giving of legal advice by persons accurately and effectively trained in the law is of greater societal value . . . than the...
To continue reading
Request your trial