Swartzenberg v. Trivedi
Decision Date | 12 March 1993 |
Citation | 594 N.Y.S.2d 927,189 A.D.2d 151 |
Parties | Linda J. SWARTZENBERG, as Executrix of the Estate of Brian F. Swartzenberg, Deceased, and Linda J. Swartzenberg, Individually, Appellant, v. Jagdish M. TRIVEDI, M.D., Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dempsey & Dempsey by Helen Dempsey, Buffalo, for appellant.
Maloney, Gallup, Roach, Brown & McCarthy by J. Mark Gruber, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and GREEN, BALIO, FALLON and BOEHM, JJ.
The question in this case is whether a letter written by a physician to a medical quality assurance review committee is immune from disclosure pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3).
On April 23, 1989, plaintiff's decedent, Brian F. Swartzenberg, was involved in an automobile accident. He was taken to the emergency room at Mount St. Mary's Hospital (Hospital), where defendant Jagdish Trivedi was the on-call trauma surgeon. It is alleged that Trivedi failed to respond to requests from Hospital employees that he report to the emergency room to treat Swartzenberg and that Swartzenberg died as a result. On June 6, 1989, Dr. Lester Schiff, the Hospital's chief of staff, asked Trivedi, in a confidential memorandum, for an explanation of his conduct. That inquiry was made after a meeting on May 19 1989 of the ad hoc quality assurance committee of the Hospital's Medical Staff Executive Committee, which Trivedi did not attend. The committee reviewed, discussed and made a preliminary determination regarding Trivedi's conduct in the Swartzenberg case. The meeting of the ad hoc committee, therefore, involved a "medical or a quality assurance review" (Education Law § 6527[3]. Trivedi responded to Schiff's inquiry with a letter on June 9, 1989.
On November 7, 1989, plaintiff demanded that the Hospital disclose various documents, including any memoranda or correspondence received by Hospital employees concerning the care and treatment of Swartzenberg and written transcripts of statements made by any defendant at any medical committee review meeting regarding the care and treatment of Swartzenberg. Thereafter, Trivedi moved for a protective order against disclosure of his June 9, 1989 letter on the ground that it was immune from disclosure under Education Law § 6527(3). After an in camera review of the document, Supreme Court concluded that the letter was immune from disclosure and granted the protective order. Plaintiff appeals.
"The purpose of disclosure procedures is to advance the function of a trial to ascertain truth and to accelerate the disposition of suits" (Rios v. Donovan, 21 A.D.2d 409, 411, 250 N.Y.S.2d 818; see also, Byork v. Carmer, 109 A.D.2d 1087, 1088, 487 N.Y.S.2d 226; see generally, CPLR 3101[a]. In light of that purpose, it has long been the policy of this State to permit liberal disclosure of relevant evidence (see, Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430). Thus, absent a statute to the contrary, Trivedi's June 9, 1989 letter would be subject to disclosure.
Trivedi contends, and Supreme Court agreed, that Education Law § 6527(3) immunizes his letter from disclosure. We disagree. In pertinent part, that statute provides:
A hypertechnical reading of the statute might suggest that Trivedi's letter is immune from disclosure, but such an interpretation would not serve any statutory purpose. Disclosure of the letter would in no way violate the statutory prohibition against disclosing the proceedings and records of a medical or quality assurance review committee.
The purpose of Education Law § 6527(3) is to encourage peer review of physicians by guaranteeing confidentiality to those persons...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Siegel v. Snyder
...truth and to accelerate the disposition of suits" ( Rios v. Donovan, 21 A.D.2d 409, 411, 250 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; see Swartzenberg v. Trivedi, 189 A.D.2d 151, 153, 594 N.Y.S.2d 927 ). However, notwithstanding the broad right to disclosure, "the CPLR establishes three categories of protected mater......
-
Johnston v. Hillis
...medical review committee containing statements of defendant doctor subject to disclosure); see also : Swartzenberg v. Trivedi, 189 A.D.2d 151, 153-54, 594 N.Y.S.2d 927 (4th Dep't 1993) (letter by physician under review to quality assurance committee discoverable because within "exception to......
-
Romero v. Cohen
...generally, Stickevers v. St. Francis Hospital, 213 A.D.2d 395, 624 N.Y.S.2d 872(1) (2nd Dept.1995); Swartzenberg v. Trivedi, 189 A.D.2d 151, 153-154, 594 N.Y.S.2d 927 (4th Dept.1993), lv. app. dism., 82 N.Y.2d 749, 602 N.Y.S.2d 807, 622 N.E.2d 308 (1993); Bush v. Dolan, 149 A.D.2d 799, 540 ......
-
Siegel v. Snyder
...Department, in Swartzenberg v Trivedi (189 A.D.2d 151) instructive, notwithstanding that the facts of that case are dissimilar. In Swartzeberg v Trivedi, in action alleging that a defendant physician's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's decedent's death, the court found that a lett......