Shelton v. Morehead Memorial Hosp., 563PA85
| Decision Date | 29 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 563PA85,563PA85 |
| Citation | 347 S.E.2d 824,318 N.C. 76 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ann S. SHELTON and Robert F. Shelton, Jr. v. MOREHEAD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Linda T. Ross, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert J. Ross, J.D., Robert P. Shapiro, M.D., Stuart M. Bergman, M.D. and the Board of Trustees of Morehead Memorial Hospital, including Joseph G. Maddrey, John E. Grogan, James M. Daly, Jr., Roy C. Turner, Joyce Johnson, William O. Stone, Jesse L. Burchell, Garland S. Edwards, William R. Frazier and Gerald James, individually, and the Executive Committee of the Medical Staff of Morehead Memorial Hospital, including Shelton Dawson, J.D., Henry A. Fleishman, M.D., Edward L. Groover, M.D., Barry L. Barker, M.D., David Lee Call, M.D., John R. Edwards, M.D. and James B. Parsons, M.D., individually. |
Graham, Cooke, Miles & Bogan by Donald T. Bogan, Greensboro, for plaintiffs.
Tuggle, Duggins, Meschan & Elrod, P.A. by Joseph E. Elrod, III, J. Reed Johnston, Jr., and Sally A. Lawing, Greensboro, for defendants, Morehead Memorial Hospital, the Board of Trustees of Morehead Memorial Hospital (and various named individual members thereof) and the Executive Committee of the Medical Staff of Morehead Memorial Hospital (and various named individual members thereof).
This is a medical malpractice action in which plaintiffs claim first that they were injured by the negligence of defendants, Drs. Robert J. Ross (now deceased) and Robert P. Shapiro. Second, plaintiffs claim that defendants Hospital, its Board of Trustees, and the Executive Committee of its Medical Staff were negligent in allowing Drs. Ross and Shapiro to continue to practice at the hospital after they knew or should have known that these physicians were not fit to practice medicine and had continuously failed to treat patients in accordance with ordinary standards of care pertaining to their profession. This is a claim for what has been called the "corporate negligence" of a hospital, which occurs when the hospital violates a duty owed directly by it to the patient. Bost v. Riley, 44 N.C.App. 638, 262 S.E.2d 391 (1980). The case involves whether and to what extent N.C.G.S. § 131E-95 precludes discovery of various records which may be in the corporate defendants' possession relating to their knowledge of the competence of the individual physicians and various personnel investigations and decisions which the corporate defendants might have made regarding the individual physicians' tenure at the hospital.
Judge Morgan, presiding in Rockingham County Superior Court, concluded that these records were privileged and could not be discovered. The Court of Appeals concluded that under N.G.C.S. § 131E-95 the records of the Medical Staff's Executive Committee were protected from discovery but the records of the Hospital's Board of Trustees were not. We modify and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that on 5 January 1983 Dr. Ross, assisted by Dr. Shapiro, negligently performed on Mrs. Shelton a total hysterectomy. As a result of this alleged negligence, Mrs. Shelton had to undergo several additional surgical procedures, whereby she has suffered physically and mentally and incurred substantial expenses. Mr. Shelton's action is for loss of consortium due to the alleged injuries suffered by his wife. Plaintiffs also allege the corporate defendants knew or should have known of the unfitness of Drs. Ross and Shapiro to practice their profession before Mrs. Shelton's surgery; yet these defendants failed to take appropriate corrective actions against their physicians.
In March 1984 plaintiffs served interrogatories upon the corporate defendants requesting them to identify, among other things, all records relating to personnel decisions, disciplinary investigations, peer evaluations, credential and competence reviews, and patient complaints relating to Drs. Ross and Shapiro. In April 1984 plaintiffs requested production of these documents. Defendants filed objections to the interrogatories and the motion to produce on the ground the information requested was "not discoverable or admissible by virtue of North Carolina General Statute § 131E-95."
Having noticed the deposition of Amos Tinnell, a former chief executive officer of the hospital, plaintiffs in June 1984 issued a subpoena duces tecum to Tinnell, directing him to produce at his deposition documents similar to those about which plaintiffs had inquired in their interrogatories and moved defendants to produce. Defendants, again relying on N.C.G.S. § 131E-95, moved for a protective order that plaintiffs not be permitted to question Tinnell so as to disclose "any matters considered or decided by any medical review committee." The motion also asked that the subpoena "requiring production of confidential material be stricken." Tinnell, himself, moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum on the grounds the documents sought from him were protected by N.C.G.S. § 131E-95.
Plaintiffs moved to compel the corporate defendants to answer the interrogatories relating to and produce the documents in question.
On 3 August 1984 Judge Morgan denied the motion to compel, quashed the subpoena duces tecum, and ordered that Tinnell not be questioned in his deposition regarding "any matters relating to the hospital's medical review processes, including the credentialing and investigation processes, except with the express permission of counsel for the hospital."
Judge Morgan also found that his rulings affected a substantial right of the plaintiff and that there was no reason for delay in obtaining appellate review of this order. See Civ. Proc. Rule 54(b). Plaintiffs appealed, assigning error to the trial court's: (1) denying plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery; (2) ordering that Tinnell not be questioned about matters relating to the hospital's medical review processes; and (3) quashing the subpoena duces tecum issued to Tinnell.
The Court of Appeals, without discussing the appealability of the order, concluded first that under the Bylaws of the Medical and Dental Staff of Morehead Memorial Hospital, the Executive Committee of the Medical Staff was a "medical review committee," as defined by N.C.G.S. § 131E-76(5). The Court of Appeals also concluded that the trial court properly quashed the subpoena duces tecum and properly ordered that Tinnell not be questioned regarding his participation in the Executive Staff's review processes. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that documents and proceedings before the hospital's Board of Trustees were not protected from discovery under either N.C.G.S. § 131E-95 or the common law. We allowed both parties' petitions for further review.
As to the appealability of Judge Morgan's rulings, we conclude his orders are interlocutory, do not affect a substantial right of the plaintiffs, and are not appealable of right. N.C.G.S. § 7A-27; First Union Nat'l Bank v. Olive, 42 N.C.App. 574, 257 S.E.2d 100 (1979). Nevertheless, because of the significance of the legal issues involved, we have elected under our supervisory powers and Appellate Procedure Rule 2 to entertain the appeal.
The statutes in question here are contained in the Hospital Licensure Act, codified as Article 5, Chapter 131E of the General Statutes. 1 The stated purposes of the Act are "to establish hospital licensing requirements which promote public health, safety and welfare and to provide for the development, establishment and enforcement of basic standards for the care and treatment of patients in hospitals." § 75. The Act defines "medical review committee" in pertinent part as "a committee ... of a medical staff of a licensed hospital ... which is formed for the purpose of evaluating the quality, cost of, or necessity for hospitalization or health care, including medical staff credentialing." § 76(5). Section 95 of the Act provides:
(a) A member of a duly appointed medical review committee who acts without malice or fraud shall not be subject to liability for damages in any civil action on account of any act, statement or proceeding undertaken, made, or performed within the scope of the functions of the committee.
(b) The proceedings of a medical review committee, the records and materials it produces and the materials it considers shall be confidential and not considered public records within the meaning of G.S. 132-1, 'Public records' defined, and shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a hospital or a provider of professional health services which results from matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by the committee. No person who was in attendance at a meeting of the committee shall be required to testify in any civil action as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of the committee or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of the committee or its members. However, information, documents, or records otherwise available are not immune from discovery or use in a civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of the committee. A member of the committee or a person who testifies before the committee may testify in a civil action but cannot be asked about his testimony before the committee or any opinions formed as a result of the committee hearings.
The question before us is whether and to what extent section 95 of the Act prohibits discovery of the documents and testimony sought by plaintiffs through their interrogatories, motions to produce and compel discovery, and deposition of and subpoena duces tecum issued to Tinnell.
Plaintiffs concede that the Medical Staff's Executive Committee is a "medical review committee" as that term is used in the Act. Plaintiffs further concede that § 95 of the Act protects from discovery medical review committee proceedings which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services
...The purpose of N.C.G.S. § 131E-95 is to promote candor and frank exchange in peer review proceedings. Shelton v. Morehead Memorial Hosp., 318 N.C. 76, 82, 347 S.E.2d 824, 828 (1986). The statute attempts to accomplish this goal by preventing discovery or introduction into evidence of a medi......
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bourlon
...that an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel discovery is generally interlocutory in nature. Shelton v. Morehead Memorial Hospital, 318 N.C. 76, 80, 347 S.E.2d 824, 827 (1986); Mack v. Moore, 91 N.C.App. 478, 480, 372 S.E.2d 314, 316 (1988), disc. review denied, 323 N.C. 704, 377......
-
Ray v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.
...law in the absence of legislative guidance, we must now revisit the statute in light of the amendment. See Shelton v. Morehead Mem'l Hosp., 318 N.C. 76, 81, 347 S.E.2d 824, 828 (1986) (“Legislative intent controls the meaning of a statute....”). The language of N.C.G.S. § 143–299.1A reflect......
-
St. Joseph's v. Cardiac Surgery
...or use at trial merely because it was presented during medical review committee proceedings,'" quoting Shelton v. Morehead Memorial Hospital, 318 N.C. 76, 83, 347 S.E.2d 824, 829 (1986)); Claypool v. Mladineo, 724 So.2d 373, 383 (Miss. 1998) ("The ... statute ... provided that the privilege......
-
Alabama Medical Records: Part 2
...Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. at 400, 742 P.2d at 1386, quoting, in turn, Shelton v. Morehead Mem. Hosp, 318 N.C. 76, 347 S.E. 2d 824 (1986).121. 789 So. 2d at 203 (citations omitted). The court arguably got off track in Fairfield Nursing, stating: "The language......