Kingsley v. Sachitano

• Decision Date: 17 November 2000
• Citation: 783 So.2d 824
• Parties: John R. KINGSLEY, M.D. v. Richard SACHITANO, M.D., et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

783 So.2d 824

John R. KINGSLEY, M.D. v. Richard SACHITANO, M.D., et al.

1990368.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 17, 2000.

Charles A. Dauphin and Elizabeth W. McElroy of Baxley, Dillard, Dauphin & McKnight, Birmingham, for appellant.

Robert L. Williams of Spain & Gillon, L.L.C., Birmingham; and Larkin Radney of Barnes & Radney, P.C., Alexander City, for appellee Richard Sachitano, M.D.

Mark W. Lee and Dorothy A. Powell of Parsons, Lee & Juliano, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee Russell Medical Center.

Thomas H. Keene, Patrick M. Shegon, and Ben C. Wilson of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for appellees John L. Watwood, M.D., and Frank Burns, M.D.

ENGLAND, Justice.

This appeal arises from a discovery order holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to discovery of certain hospital documents, based on the confidentiality provisions of § 22-21-8, Ala.Code 1975. We affirm.

Dr. John R. Kingsley, the plaintiff, is a vascular surgeon who developed a vascular-surgery department at Russell Medical Center. On April 1, 1998, he sued Dr. Richard Sachitano, Dr. John L. Watwood, and Dr. Frank Burns, alleging 1) negligence or wantonness in the performance of a peer review of the plaintiff by the Tissue and Transfusion Committee of Russell Hospital, and 2) libel and slander.

After filing his complaint, the plaintiff issued a subpoena to Russell Hospital, seeking numerous documents. Russell Hospital filed an objection to his request, based upon the confidentiality provisions of § 22-21-8, Ala.Code 1975. The trial judge held a hearing on the matter and entered the following order:

"ORDER

"This matter came before this court on July 21, 1999, for an evidentiary hearing as to whether or not the Court should reverse its earlier ruling sustaining the objection filed by the nonparty Russell Medical Center to plaintiff's request for production of certain peer review documents. Plaintiff asserts these documents are a part of the underlying peer review process that forms the basis of plaintiff's complaint.

"Plaintiff issued a subpoena to Russell Medical Center, requesting certain peer review documents. Russell Medical Center objected on the basis of the confidentiality provision of § 22-21-8. Plaintiff contends that the documents which are the subject of the discovery request were generated as a result of a peer review process [and] are not protected by the quality assurance privilege of confidentiality. In his brief filed in response to Russell's objection, Plaintiff states `it is clear that the statute is not applicable where the information sought is essential to providing the litigant with a full and fair trial by jury.' Plaintiff cites Ex parte St. Vincent's Hospital, 652 So.2d 225 (Ala.1994), as creating such an exception. In a more recent opinion, the Supreme Court held such an `essential need' exception does not exist in § 22-21-8. See Ex parte Burch, 730 So.2d 143 (Ala.1999). This Court declines to recognize such an exception here.

"At plaintiff's request, this court held an evidentiary hearing to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to put forth a prima facie case to defeat the good faith immunity asserted by the defendants and to seek the production of documents about which Russell Medical Center has objected.

"The Court heard testimony from the plaintiff, [considered] evidentiary materials submitted, and considered the evidentiary proffer by plaintiff's counsel. For the reasons stated below, the court continues to sustain the objection of Russell Medical Center and will not require the production of the privileged peer review documents.

"The documents plaintiffs seeks are clearly covered by the privilege afforded under § 22-21-8, Ala.Code 1975. The pertinent part of this statute provides as follows:

"(b) All accreditation, quality assurance credentialling and similar materials shall be held in confidence and shall not be subject to discovery or introduction in evidence in any civil action against a health care professional or institution arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and review for accreditation, quality assurance and similar functions, purposes, or activities.'

(Emphasis added.)

"This statute provides for the confidentiality of the peer review process. In addition to providing for confidentiality, the legislature has also provided immunity for those who participate in the peer view process. (See § 34-24-58, Ala.Code 1975.)

"Not only has the Court heard no evidence to suggest the confidentiality afforded by § 22-21-8 should be disregarded; based upon the evidence heard this day, the immunity under § 34-24-58 would also be required to be afforded the defendants unless more is shown than was produced at the hearing.

"This Court notes that at the hearing, the principal thrust of plaintiff's evidence was to show that the plaintiff's approach to vascular surgical issues was correct and the peer reviewing defendants simply did not understand this area of medicine. It is also clear the subject of the peer review process involves a complex area of medicine. This court does not perceive that its function is to determine whether or not the peer reviewing defendants were correct in their concerns, or the peer reviewed plaintiff was correct in his position. That is a matter best left to the medical peer review community to answer.* This Court's concern should only be whether there is evidence of an abuse of the peer review process by the defendants for some illegitimate, unlawful, or illegal purpose. Nothing presented to this court comes close to raising judicial concerns over the peer review process that is the subject of the instant litigation. The evidence produced by the plaintiff possibly showed that the doctors did not like each other, they did not get along with each other, and they possibly had personal and/or professional differences. However, that situation is likely to be involved in any hospital where doctors are required to work together. This no doubt was within the contemplation of the Legislature when these statutes were enacted. Such differences could always be alleged and should not be construed so as to destroy the beneficial effects the Legislature had in mind when it passed these statutes.

"The objection by Russell Medical Center to plaintiffs subpoena for documents is hereby sustained. The Court does note that if faced with a properly supported Motion for Summary Judgment, without more evidence offered by the plaintiff to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the legitimacy of the process, i.e., evidence of bad faith or malice, the court would be hard-pressed not to afford immunity to the defendants in this action. (See § 34-24-58, Ala. Code 1975.)

"At the evidentiary hearing, there were testimony and exhibits offered that relate to a confidential peer review proceeding. It is therefore the order of this court that the transcript and all exhibits offered in this proceeding be subject to, and are hereby held

...