Moretti v. Lowe, 89-503-M

Citation592 A.2d 855
Decision Date10 June 1991
Docket NumberNo. 89-503-M,89-503-M
PartiesJill MORETTI et al. v. Lynn C. LOWE, M.D., et al. P.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

E. Paul Grimm, Decof & Grimm, Providence, Donna Savella, Cranston, for plaintiff.

Frank S. Lombardi, Roberts, Carroll, Feldstein & Peirce, Inc., Providence, J. Olenn, Olenn & Penza, Warwick, David Caroll, Roberts, Carroll, Feldstein & Peirce, Inc., Providence, for defendant.

OPINION

SHEA, Justice.

This matter is before the Supreme Court on a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari in which the plaintiffs seek our review of a denial by the trial court of their motion to compel more responsive answers by defendant Lowe to interrogatories propounded to him in a wrongful-death medical-malpractice action. The petition is granted.

The plaintiffs David and Jill Moretti (Moretti), individually and as survivors and heirs at law of Chelsea Ann Moretti (Chelsea), brought suit against Lynn C. Lowe, M.D. (Lowe), and Kathleen Z. Hawk (Hawk), a certified nurse midwife.

In count 1 of the complaint Moretti alleges negligence on the part of Lowe in the diagnosis and treatment of Moretti and her unborn child, Chelsea, resulting in the latter's death on May 21, 1986. Count 2 alleges negligence on the part of Hawk in the treatment and care of Moretti and her unborn child, Chelsea. No allegations are raised against the hospital where the birth occurred for its supervision or evaluation of Lowe.

Moretti's counsel propounded thirteen interrogatories to Lowe. Two of those interrogatories gave rise to the issues before us.

Interrogatory 8 asked:

"State the names and addresses of all persons believed or known by you or your agents, servants, or insurers to have any knowledge concerning any facts pertaining to the claim set forth in this action."

Lowe answered interrogatory 8 as follows:

"Other than the parties to this action, members of committees who are covered by legal privilege, experts, and the plaintiffs' treating physicians, none are known."

Interrogatory 10 asked:

"Have you ever had any staff or other privileges restricted, revoked, or curtailed at any hospital? If so, state in what way the restriction, revocation, or curtailment was invoked, the dates of same, together with the reason."

Lowe answered interrogatory 10 as follows:

"Objection to answering for any period of time subsequent to May 21, 1986. As of May 21, 1986 and prior to that date, I had never had my privileges restricted, revoked, or curtailed."

The plaintiffs moved to compel defendant Lowe to file more responsive answers. An order was agreed upon by the parties regarding all interrogatories propounded except those numbered 8 and 10. After a hearing, the motion-calendar justice denied the motion for more responsive answers regarding Nos. 8 and 10.

It was the motion-calendar justice's opinion that any further response would violate the statutory privilege set out in G.L.1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 23-17-25. 1 That statute provides the privileges and immunities for peer-review activities. He stated:

"[T]he chilling effect [of granting the motion] would be to deny the hospitals the services of competent physicians to review the decisions being made by members who have staff privileges, and the impact of such a decision would be self-defeating in that it would prevent the medical community from upgrading the care and treatment of members of the general public, and I think it would be a very, very poor policy to put them in a position where they can be subpoenaed in every medical malpractice case that they may have been called upon to cast an opinion."

In Cofone v. Westerly Hospital, 504 A.2d 998, 1000 (R.I.1986), we held that "the statute [§ 23-17-25] explicitly dictates that only the records and the proceedings which originate with[in] the peer-review board are immune from discovery and inadmissible."

The plaintiffs argue that the information sought in the matter before us does not take the form of the records and the proceedings of the peer-review board and is therefore discoverable. They argued to the motion-calendar justice that they were seeking only supplemental information, such as whether defendant had been disciplined after the alleged negligent act.

For support of their position plaintiffs rely on Humana Hospital v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 396, 742 P.2d 1382 (1987). In that case the Arizona court said that "[w]hile the internal workings and deliberative processes of regularly constituted committees are immune from discovery, the effect of the proceedings is not * * * ." Id. at 403, 742 P.2d at 1389. Other courts have also adopted this position. In Anderson v. Breda, 103 Wash. 2d 901, 907, 700 P.2d 737, 741 (1985), the Supreme Court of Washington found:

"Although the extent of a physician's hospital privileges may be determined by what occurs within a quality review committee, the fact that a physician's privileges are restricted, suspended or revoked is not properly subject to the protections of the statute. The goal and fundamental purpose of the statute is open discussions during committee investigations. Open discussion is not inhibited by permitting discovery of the effect of the committee proceedings."

That court observed that the final decision to rescind, revoke, or suspend a physician's hospital privileges might be made by a hospital administrator or by an entity other than the peer-review committee. The court concluded that the privilege from discovery afforded to a hospital peer-review committee did not include discovery from a defendant physician concerning the termination, suspension, or restriction of that physician's hospital privileges. Id. at 908, 700 P.2d at 742. A similar conclusion was reached in Greenwood v. Wierdsma, 741 P.2d 1079, 1089 (Wyo.1987), wherein the court held that the peer-review privilege does not prohibit discovery of actions that may be taken thereafter by the hospital as may be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • Goodwich v. Nolan
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1995
    ...the issue, the panel chair, nevertheless, was persuaded by the analysis adopted by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Moretti v. Lowe, 592 A.2d 855 (R.I.1991). 4 Moreover, he stressed that while he found the requested information discoverable, he was not ruling, nor did he intend to imply......
  • St. Joseph's v. Cardiac Surgery
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 12, 2006
    ...statute ... provided that the privilege did not extend to information that originated outside the peer review process"); Moretti v. Lowe, 592 A.2d 855, 858 (R.I.1991) (The statute "does not render immune information otherwise available from original sources even if the information was prese......
  • Claypool v. Mladineo, 96-IA-00342-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1998
    ...language of the statute. In this regard, we agree with the rationale expressed by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Moretti v. Lowe, 592 A.2d 855, 857-858 (R.I.1991): "In enacting our peer-review statute, the Legislature recognized the need for open discussions and candid self-analysis i......
  • Gaumond v. Trinity Repertory Co.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • November 14, 2006
    ...has declared "that privileges, in general, are not favored in the law and therefore should be strictly construed." Moretti v. Lowe, 592 A.2d 855, 857 (R.I.1991) (citing Jordan v. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District, 701 S.W.2d 644, 647 (Tex.1985)).12 Mindful that the f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Leading by example: why the First Circuit should adopt a medical peer-review privilege.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy No. 16, January 2011
    • January 1, 2011
    ...participants). (23) See Nijm, supra note 15, at 545-46 (describing who seeks peer-review information and why). (24) See Moretti v. Lowe, 592 A.2d 855, 857-59 (R.I. 1991) (characterizing legislative intent behind Rhode Island's peer-review statute). There is an "overwhelming public interest"......

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