Marten v. Eden Park Health Services Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1998
• Citation: 680 N.Y.S.2d 750,250 A.D.2d 44
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,226 Virginia MARTEN, Appellant, v. EDEN PARK HEALTH SERVICES INC. et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 750

680 N.Y.S.2d 750

250 A.D.2d 44, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,226

Virginia MARTEN, Appellant, v. EDEN PARK HEALTH SERVICES INC. et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Nov. 19, 1998.

Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Napierski & Maloney P.C. (Timothy P. O'Keefe, of counsel), for appellant.

Bond, Schoeneck & King LLP (Maureen W. Young, of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before CARDONA, P.J., PETERS, SPAIN, CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.

SPAIN, Justice.

Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.), entered March 26, 1998 in Rensselaer County, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion to compel disclosure.

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, was employed as a unit manager at Eden Park Nursing Home in the City of Troy, Rensselaer County, a facility owned and operated by defendants. On September 4, 1996, in the course of her duties, plaintiff rendered nursing care to an elderly patient who, after plaintiff's shift had ended, suffered cardiopulmonary arrest and died. When plaintiff returned to work the following day and reviewed the patient's records, she expressed concern to her supervisor that the personnel of the facility failed to take appropriate resuscitation measures in violation of Public Health Law § 2962. On September 16, 1996, plaintiff was terminated from her position. Defendants filed a report alleging plaintiff's inappropriate treatment of the patient with the State Department of Health. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was terminated in retaliation for reporting the incident in violation of the "Whistle Blower Statute" (Labor Law § 740). ¹ Defendants answered stating that plaintiff's termination was based upon her dereliction of her duties to the patient who died.

In September 1997, after an investigation, the Department notified plaintiff by letter of its determination that she violated Public Health Law § 2803-d and related departmental rules and regulations in failing to properly assess the patient, in light of her cardiac history, when she complained of chest pain. Notably, in April 1998, the Department informed plaintiff that it ultimately found upon review that it could not "presently sustain its burden of proof" with respect to said charge and that it would expunge the report and determination mentioned in its September 1997 letter.

Shortly after joinder of issue, defendants served a set of interrogatories and requests for the production of documents upon plaintiff. Included among the items of discovery sought by defendants are information and documents relating to any charge or complaint filed against plaintiff or with respect to any investigation conducted by the Department or any other investigation concerning the care, treatment and death of the patient in question. Plaintiff objected to this discovery as being irrelevant and improper, as it would require disclosure of material that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and immune from disclosure under the Public Health Law, the Education Law and applicable rules and regulations. Defendants then moved in Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel compliance with their discovery demands and plaintiff cross-moved for a protective order, asserting that any information relating to her representation before the Department was protected by the attorney-client privilege and was material prepared in anticipation of litigation. Supreme Court, finding that the information sought was relevant, not privileged and discoverable, granted defendants' motion to compel, denied plaintiff's motion for a protective order and also denied defendants' request for costs and counsel fees. Plaintiff appeals.

The party seeking to prevent disclosure has a heavy burden, especially where the materials sought are relevant. Under CPLR 3101(a), "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof". Moreover, "trial courts are clothed with broad discretion in supervising the scope of disclosure" (Bloss v. Ford Motor Co., 126 A.D.2d 804, 805, 510 N.Y.S.2d 304). "The words, 'material and necessary', are * * * to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason" (Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430). If immunity or privilege are raised, the party challenging disclosure "bears the burden of establishing that the information sought is immune from disclosure" (Bloss v. Ford Motor Co., supra, at 805, 510 N.Y.S.2d 304; see, Central Natl. Bank v. Thorington, 115 A.D.2d 829, 830, 495 N.Y.S.2d 787). Here, plaintiff must support her claim of immunity by showing that the requested material is privileged by virtue of being material prepared in anticipation of litigation, attorney-client privilege, or protected under Public Health Law § 2803-d(6)(e) or some other statute or regulation which provides confidentiality. In our view, plaintiff did not meet her burden and, thus, Supreme Court's order should be affirmed.

Initially, we conclude that the requested materials are clearly relevant to the defense of this action. We also conclude that the materials sought from the prior administrative proceedings, which involved an inquiry into plaintiff's conduct in relation to the deceased patient, were not prepared in anticipation of the...