John C. Lincoln Hosp. and Health Center v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, 1

Citation159 Ariz. 456,768 P.2d 188
Decision Date12 January 1989
Docket NumberNo. 1,CA-SA,1
PartiesJOHN C. LINCOLN HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER, an Arizona corporation, Petitioner, Attila S. Szokol, M.D., Intervenor-Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, the Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, a judge thereof, Respondent Judge, Sherry Lynn GIORDANO, an incapacitated person, by and through her next friend and natural father, Robert NIXON; Robert Nixon and Ivy Nixon, natural parents of Sherry Lynn Giordano, Real Parties in Interest. 88-166.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
OPINION

EUBANK, Judge.

This is a special action brought by John C. Lincoln Hospital and Health Center (Lincoln Hospital) from the trial court's determination permitting documents asserted to be protected under peer review privilege, A.R.S. §§ 36-445 et seq., to be discovered.

Following oral argument on September 26, 1988, we took this matter under advisement. Then, on September 29, we entered our order permitting Dr. Attila S. Szokol to intervene and accepting jurisdiction of this special action. We ordered the clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court to transmit under seal, for this court's in camera review, the documents which were the subject of the trial court's disclosure orders of June 22 and July 6, 1988, and which are described and discussed hereafter. These documents, except for the Quality Assurance Program Incident Report (Incident Report), were received. Following our conference, on November 4, 1988, we entered our order quashing the trial court's discovery order in two respects, and stated that our opinion would follow. This is that opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

In the early part of 1986, Sherry Giordano (plaintiff) sustained injuries in an automobile accident. Plaintiff was admitted to Lincoln Hospital, where she was treated for injuries sustained in the accident. On March 29, 1986, while still in the hospital, a nurse employed by Lincoln Hospital entered into plaintiff's room to find that some of her vital organs had ceased functioning. After resuscitation, her organs began to function, but because of the incident brain damage had occurred.

Some time later, plaintiff through counsel filed an action in superior court against Lincoln Hospital and Dr. Szokol alleging medical negligence or malpractice pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-561 et seq. During discovery plaintiff sought production of various hospital records, reports, committee minutes and other documented material from Lincoln Hospital. Lincoln Hospital complied with some requests, but asserted peer review privilege under A.R.S. §§ 36-445 et seq. on other requests. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to compel. After an in camera inspection, the trial court determined that some of the items asserted to be privileged were in fact discoverable. The trial court ordered:

1. Denying Plaintiff's requests with respect to Items 13 (except for lab results 5/7/86 and 6/4/86 and "Communication," pg. 2 of 6/4/86), 14, and 15 as irrelevant and not leading to relevant or discoverable information.

* * *

* * *

3. Disclosing Item 9 (not previously produced under claim of Privilege) as not privileged and could lead to relevant and discoverable information.

Lincoln Hospital moved that the trial court order all the documents contained in Items 9 and 13 to be sealed until a determination upon its discoverability could be obtained from this court pursuant to a review by special action.

Plaintiffs then initiated a second motion to compel requesting that an Incident Report prepared at Lincoln Hospital be likewise found discoverable. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion. Lincoln Hospital then petitioned the trial court to also seal the Incident Report 1 until a special action on all the documents could be obtained. We now have these documents before this court.

ISSUES

The issues presented are:

1. Were Items 9 and 13 properly found to be not protected under peer review privilege pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 36-445 et seq.; and

2. Is a Quality Assurance Program Incident Report a record which is protected under peer review privilege of A.R.S. §§ 36-445 et seq.

DISPOSITION

The first issue presented to this court is whether Items 9 and 13 are subject to discovery. In request Item 9 the plaintiffs sought certain documents concerning defendant Dr. Szokol including: a. his application for staff privileges; b. his application for a position in any training program at Lincoln Hospital; c. any records reflecting hospital investigations into his application for staff privileges, including investigations into his background, work, and experience before his association with the Lincoln Hospital; d. documents indicating review or investigation of his work at Lincoln Hospital.

We may abbreviate our discussion of this item. We recently held such documents undiscoverable in Humana Hospital v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 396, 742 P.2d 1382 (App.1987), wherein this court denied discovery on the basis of the statutory privileges involved here. Although the Humana court did not rule directly on d. above, we are of the opinion that such documents are likewise within the protection confirmed by the statute. We affirm the Humana decision, and deem the material requested in Item 9 clearly protected under Humana and A.R.S. § 36-445.

Next, we turn to whether the documents listed in request Item 13 are subject to discovery. Item 13 sought production of all trauma/critical care committee minutes generated at Lincoln Hospital from February through September 1986. With peer review privilege being asserted, the trial court found it necessary to conduct an in camera review of the trauma/critical care committee minutes in question. After its inspection, the trial court found request Item 13 to be almost wholly protected under the peer review privilege. However, the trial court did order the production of two trauma/critical care committee minute records referred to as "lab results" and one trauma/critical care committee minute referred to as "communication." We now consider whether this determination by the trial court was proper.

These documents have been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Samaritan Foundation v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 2. Juni 1992
    ... ... , an Arizona corporation; Samaritan Health Services, dba Good Samaritan Regional Medical ... Nos. 1 CA-SA 90-220, 1 CA-SA 90-232 ... Court of ... dba Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center, Cathey Milam Chester and Elaine Fraiz ... , Phoenix, for petitioner Phoenix Children's Hosp., Inc ...         Leonard & Clancy, ... 396, 742 P.2d 1382 ( [App.] 1987) and John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Superior Court, 159 Ariz ... ...
  • Powell v. Community Health Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 24. Mai 2010
    ... ... No. E2008-00535-SC-R11-CV ... Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville ... September 3, ... suit in the Chancery Court for Bradley County against the hospital and an orthopaedic surgeon ...          I. 1 ...         Kimberly Powell began ... , Rehabilitation and Pain Management Center, P.C. ("TriState Orthopedics"). Ms. Powell ... , 923 P.2d 1, 10 (1996); Santa Rosa Mem'l Hosp. v. Superior Court, 174 Cal.App.3d 711, 220 ... Lincoln Gen. Hosp., 605 So.2d 1347, 1348 (La.1992); In ... St. John's Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Dally, 90 S.W.3d 209, ... ...
  • State ex rel. HCR Manorcare, LLC v. Stucky
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 9. Juni 2015
    ... ... ; Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, LLC; ... Employment Services, LLC ; Joseph Donchatz; John Does 1 Through 10; and Unidentified Entities 1 ... STUCKY, Judge of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia; and Tom Hanna, ... certain nurse consultant reports known as Center Visit Summaries. ManorCare contends that the ... See State ex rel. Charles Town Gen. Hosp. v. Sanders, 210 W.Va. 118, 123, 556 S.E.2d 85, ... Superior Court, 174 Cal.App.3d 711, 220 Cal.Rptr. 236 ... See John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Superior Court In & For ty. of Maricopa, 159 Ariz. 456, 458, 768 P.2d 188, 190 (1989) ... ...
  • Harrison v. Munson Healthcare, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 30. Januar 2014
    ... 304 Mich.App. 1 851 N.W.2d 549 HARRISON v. MUNSON HEALTHCARE, ... Docket Nos. 304512, 304539. Court of Appeals of Michigan. Submitted Jan. 8, 2014, ... William Potthoff at Munson Medical Center, owned by defendant Munson Healthcare, Inc ...         Michigan's Public Health" Code, MCL 333.1101 et seq. , directs that the \xE2\x80" ... Detroit Osteopathic Hosp. Corp., 460 Mich. 26, 41, 594 N.W.2d 455 (1999) ... John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Superior Court, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT