Logue v. Velez

• Decision Date: 09 June 1998
• Citation: 677 N.Y.S.2d 6,699 N.E.2d 365,92 N.Y.2d 13
• Parties: , 699 N.E.2d 365, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5433 Barbara LOGUE et al., Respondents, v. Augustine VELEZ, et al., Defendants, and Lake Shore Hospital, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 6

677 N.Y.S.2d 6

92 N.Y.2d 13, 699 N.E.2d 365, 1998

N.Y. Slip Op. 5433

Barbara LOGUE et al., Respondents, v.Augustine VELEZ, et al., Defendants and Lake Shore Hospital, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 9, 1998.

Damon & Morey, L.L.P., Buffalo (Amy Archer Flaherty, of counsel), for appellant.

Dempsey & Dempsey, Buffalo (Helen Kaney Dempsey, of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

LEVINE, Judge.

This discovery dispute arises out of a medical malpractice action in which plaintiffs-respondents Barbara and James Logue seek recovery for injuries that Barbara allegedly sustained while undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery to remove her gallbladder, performed by defendant- Robert F. Barnes, doctor of osteopathy.Plaintiffs' theories of liability include claims that Dr. Barnes was inadequately trained to perform the procedure, and that defendant-appellant Lake Shore Hospital (Hospital) was negligent in granting him privileges to conduct this type of surgery at the Hospital.^*

Plaintiffs issued a pretrial disclosure request to the Hospital seeking copies of Dr. Barnes' initial application and subsequent renewal application for laparoscopic cholecystectomy privileges and all supporting documentation.The Hospital refused to turn over the application materials, asserting that provisions of the Education Law and the Public Health Law, which protect the confidentiality of records related to the medical quality review function of hospitals, barred such disclosure (see, Education Law § 6527[3];Public Health Law §§ 2805-j,2805-k,2805-m).

Thereafter, Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel disclosure, determining that the materials were not shielded by the Public Health Law or the Education Law and, in any event, the statutory "statements exception" set forth in Education Law § 6527(3) would permit disclosure.Section 6527(3) excludes from confidentiality statements made at a medical review proceeding by an individual who is a party to an action or proceeding, "the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting"(Education Law § 6527[3] ).The Appellate Division affirmed on the grounds that the applications and supporting documents were discoverable under the Education Law § 6527(3) statements exception and the identical exception found in Public Health Law § 2805-m(2)(241 A.D.2d 960, 661 N.Y.S.2d 349).Two Justices dissented, concluding that the applications were submitted as part of a formal medical review procedure and should be protected under the Education Law.The dissenters also rejected the notion that the statements exception applied because the applications were not statements regarding the subject matter of the instant action, i.e., the alleged negligent surgery.The Appellate Division granted defendants leave to appeal on the certified question of whether its order was correctly made.We reverse, and answer the certified question in the negative.

The New York State Education Law shields from disclosure "the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical and dental malpractice prevention program"(Education Law § 6527[3] ).The purpose of the discovery exclusion is to "enhance the objectivity of the review process" and to assure that medical review committees "may frankly and objectively analyze the quality of health services rendered" by hospitals (see, Mem. of Assembly Rules Comm., Bill Jacket, L. 1971, ch. 990, at 6).By guaranteeing confidentiality to quality review and malpractice prevention procedures, this provision is designed to encourage thorough and candid peer review of physicians, and thereby improve the quality of medical care (id.;see also, Lilly v. Turecki, 112 A.D.2d 788, 492 N.Y.S.2d 286).

Subsequently enacted provisions of the Public Health Law embodied the same policy as, and in large measure duplicated, the confidentiality guarantee of Education Law § 6527(3).In the mid-1980s, the Legislature passed comprehensive malpractice reforms designed to restrain oppressive increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums by introducing procedural and substantive restrictions on malpractice suits, while also reducing the incidence of malpractice by requiring more peer self-policing and by improving the investigation of, and methods of disciplining, physician misconduct (see, Legislative findings and declaration, L. 1985, ch. 294, § 1;Legislative findings and declaration, L. 1986, ch. 266, § 1).Amendments to article 28 of the Public Health Law addressed the latter objective.Public Health Law § 2805-j specifically requires every hospital to "maintain a coordinated program for the identification and prevention of medical * * * malpractice"(Public Health Law § 2805-j[1] ).The mandated malpractice program must include periodic reviews of physicians' credentials and competence (see, id.).In addition, prior to granting or renewing professional privileges, a hospital is obligated to request specific, detailed information from physicians, including professional experience, incidents of misconduct, education, and training (see, Public Health Law § 2805-k[1] ).

Public Health Law § 2805-m confers complete confidentiality on information gathered by a hospital in accordance with Public Health Law §§ 2805-jand2805-k, expressly exempting it from disclosure under CPLR article 31(see, Public Health Law § 2805-m[2] ).These protections against disclosure were added to the Public Health Law to "clarify that existing protections against disclosure of materials relating to quality assurance activities apply to hospital malpractice prevention programs and incident reporting"(L. 1986, ch. 266, Bill Jacket, Governor Program Bill, at 7;see also, id., Executive Chamber Mem., at 16).

Dr. Barnes' initial and renewal applications for privileges fall squarely within the materials that are made confidential by Education Law § 6527(3) and article 28 of the Public Health Law.In opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel disclosure, the Hospital submitted affidavits of its medical director, the staff person responsible for overseeing the credentialing of physicians during the relevant years.These affidavits state that the application materials at issue were reviewed by the Hospital's credentialing committee as part of a procedure conducted every two years to assess physicians' competence for issuing or renewing privileges and to prevent medical malpractice.It necessarily follows that the applications were required as part of a process to insure the capability of an...