Peterson v. Martinez, A17-0355

• Decision Date: 18 December 2017
• Docket Number: A17-0355
• Parties: Dr. Jonathan Peterson, Appellant, v. Ruth Martinez, in her Official Capacity, et al., Respondents, The Professional Renewal Center, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Dr. Jonathan Peterson, Appellant, v. Ruth Martinez, in her Official Capacity, et al., Respondents,The Professional Renewal Center, Respondent.

A17-0355

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

December 18, 2017

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

Affirmed

Peterson, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. 62-CV-16-3165

Cindy Lavorato, Lavorato Law Office, Norfolk, Virginia (for appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Karen D. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Lucas Clayton, Nicholas Lienesch, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondents Ruth Martinez and Minnesota Board of Medical Practice)

John B. Casserly, Mark W. Hardy, Geraghty, O'Loughlin & Kenney, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent The Professional Renewal Center)

Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Association of American Physicians & Surgeons)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PETERSON, Judge

Appellant doctor argues that the district court (1) improperly granted summary judgment on his claims that respondent medical board and other respondents violated his rights under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) and (2) abused its discretion by denying his motions to amend his complaint and to compel production of documents. We affirm.

FACTS

After receiving complaints in November 2011 about appellant Dr. Jonathan Peterson's conduct, respondent Minnesota Board of Medical Practice (the board) reached a stipulation with Peterson and issued an order on January 11, 2014. Among other terms, the order provided that Peterson consented to a reprimand and agreed to take approved courses on professional boundaries and medical-records management within a year and to write a paper about what he learned from the courses.

After receiving a complaint on April 11, 2014, alleging that Peterson continued to engage in prohibited conduct, the board began an investigation to determine whether Peterson violated the 2014 order. On January 23, 2015, the complaint review committee of the board sent Peterson a letter asking him to "attend a conference with the Committee" about his alleged failure to comply with the terms of the 2014 order. The allegations included that Peterson failed to complete the professional-boundaries course, continued to engage in prohibited conduct, and failed to cooperate with the investigation. The letterincluded notice that the committee was seeking data that could be protected under the MGDPA, Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01-.90 (2016).

Peterson informed the board that he was not able to find a professional-boundaries course and that he could not complete a course "for personal, financial, and professional reasons." Peterson asked to meet with the complaint review committee, and the committee invited Peterson to appear before it; Peterson twice canceled meetings with the committee, he failed to comply with the committee's request that he confirm his attendance at a third scheduled meeting with the committee, and he failed to attend that meeting on April 8, 2015. The board issued an order on April 20, 2015, stating that it had probable cause to believe that Peterson was "unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients," as required under Minn. Stat. § 147.091, subd. 1(1), and ordering Peterson to "submit to a comprehensive mental and physical evaluation."

The board held a hearing on May 9, 2015, for disciplinary action based on Peterson's noncompliance with the 2014 order. Following the hearing, the board rescinded the 2014 order and issued an order that indefinitely suspended Peterson's license to practice medicine and surgery in Minnesota.¹

Respondent The Professional Renewal Center (PRC) conducted the evaluation required under the board's April 20, 2015 order. The State of Minnesota, acting on behalf of the board, had entered into a "master contract" with PRC under which PRC served as a medical consultant to evaluate matters involving Minnesota board licensees. The contractprovides that, among other things, PRC will "[c]onduct a comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation, or a comprehensive practice skills assessment" and "[r]eview patient medical records and charts, and additional documentation as deemed necessary." The agreement includes the following provision regarding data:

[PRC] and State must comply with the [MGDPA] . . . as it applies to all data provided by the State under any work order contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained or disseminated by [PRC] under the work order contract. The Civil remedies of Minnesota Statute § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either [PRC] or the State.

If [PRC] receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, [PRC] must immediately notify the State. The State will give [PRC] instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released.

The contract also provides that "Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this master contract and all work order contracts."

PRC conducted Peterson's evaluation in Kansas from August 9 through August 14, 2015. Before participating in the evaluation, Peterson signed a participation agreement, which stated: "I understand that I do not have the right to review or receive collateral data gathered during my participation in the Program." Peterson also consented to and authorized the release of confidential data to PRC for the evaluation.²

Following the evaluation, PRC issued a 26-page "Assessment Discharge Summary" in September 2015, which was sent to the board and Peterson. Relying on the assessmentreport, the committee concluded that Peterson should not engage in the clinical practice of medicine until he followed recommendations. The committee notified Peterson that it would hold a conference to discuss his ability to practice medicine. The conference was held on February 11, 2016.

In late 2015, Peterson began requesting data from the board and from PRC, and eventually he specifically cited the MGDPA in his requests. On December 4, 2015, Peterson's attorney sent a letter to respondent Ruth Martinez, the executive director of the board, which claimed that there were inconsistencies in PRC's assessment report and requested data that supported the report. Martinez responded on behalf of the board in a December 16, 2015 letter, which stated, generally, that the board did not have any data that PRC had relied on in preparing the assessment report, other than the 13 documents that the board had provided to PRC when initiating the evaluation; Martinez attached those documents to the letter.

Martinez also sent an email to PRC that informed PRC that Peterson was "requesting data underlying the [assessment] report" and authorized "the legal release [to Peterson] of supplemental data in PRC's possession." Martinez contacted Erica Herrman at PRC to inquire about the release of records and was told that PRC was "very limited" in the records it could release because of "confidentiality standards." According to Herrman, "State of Kansas laws [prohibit] releasing raw test data to anyone other than a licensed psychologist."

After further exchanges between Peterson and the board, the board informed Peterson that the MGDPA "does not require [the board] to obtain the data you seek fromthe PRC" and suggested that Peterson could obtain "the requested raw data" through PRC by signing a PRC authorization. The board also informed Peterson that it would not object to the release of such data, as long as the board received copies of the data, and that it would execute a release for this purpose if requested.

On April 11, 2016, PRC purportedly received by email a letter from Peterson's attorney that was dated March 21, 2016. The letter referred to previous requests for "underlying data" pertaining to Peterson's assessment report and broadly requested test results or "raw data" that supported PRC's conclusions, names of individuals who collected data, communications between the board and PRC, and notes and drafts of reports preceding the final assessment report. PRC responded that the April 11 email was the first correspondence it had received from Peterson, PRC could not "comment on behavior obtained from collateral sources beyond what is summarized in the report," "Peterson waived his right to receive or review collateral data," and PRC generally refused to elaborate on confidential information. PRC also characterized the assessment report as "a compilation of information gathered by individual clinicians" and stated that "[a]ny handwritten notes by therapists are not maintained by PRC."

In a complaint filed in May 2016, Peterson initiated an action alleging violations of the MGDPA by the board, the complaint review committee of the board, and Martinez, individually and in her official capacity, (collectively, board-related respondents), and by PRC. The board-related respondents and PRC moved for summary judgment. Two weeks later, Peterson moved to amend his complaint and to compel production of documents.

On August 19, 2016, Martinez sent PRC a letter stating that "[u]pon further analysis and review . . . it is the position of the [board] that the data requested by Dr. Peterson and his counsel from [PRC] is classified as CONFIDENTIAL under the [MGDPA]" because it involves "active investigative data relating to the investigation of complaints against [a] licensee" under Minn. Stat. § 13.41, subd. 4.

Following a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment to all respondents and dismissed Peterson's action. The district court denied Peterson's motions to amend and to compel production of documents. This appeal followed.³

DECISION

[An appellate court] review[s] a

...