DocketNumber: No. 2007-G-2765.
Citation Numbers: 885 N.E.2d 971, 175 Ohio App. 3d 155, 2007 Ohio 6944
Judges: MARY JANE TRAPP, Judge.
Filed Date: 12/21/2007
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
{¶ 1} Appellant, Heather Hill, Inc., d.b.a. Heather Hill Hospital ("Heather Hill"), appeals the judgment entered by the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas that ordered, for the purposes of an in camera inspection inter alia, the production of incident reports relating to the injuries sustained by Patricia Manley ("Mrs. Manley"), deceased, as well as witness statements and certain injury reports of other patients. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Statement of Facts and ProceduralHistory
{¶ 3} This appeal stems from injuries sustained by Mrs. Manley while she was a patient at Heather Hill. Mrs. Manley had been admitted to Heather Hill on several prior occasions and had suffered a number of falls there. One such fall *Page 158 occurred on November 14, 2002, and as a result of this fall, Mrs. Manley fractured her left femur and left hip. Following surgery, Mrs. Manley developed an infection, which eventually required an above-the-knee amputation. Ultimately, on May 23, 2004, Mrs. Manley died.
{¶ 4} On February 23, 2006, Mrs. Manley's daughter, Cynthia Manley ("Ms. Manley"), executor of the estate of Mrs. Manley, filed a complaint against Heather Hill, alleging that Heather Hill was negligent in its care of Mrs. Manley and that that negligence proximately caused her death.1 Heather Hill denied the allegations in the complaint.
{¶ 5} During the course of discovery, Ms. Manley sought several documents from Heather Hill, including, among other things, the production of any "incident reports" relating to Mrs. Manley, witness statements, and the identity of other patients who had sustained injuries at Heather Hill. Heather Hill refused to provide these documents, claiming that the documents were either protected by privilege or work product or were nondiscoverable under the peer-review statutes set forth in R.C.
{¶ 6} The trial court granted the motion to compel and ordered the production of any incident reports relating to Mrs. Manley, provided that they were not prepared for peer-review purposes, and ordered an in camera inspection to make this determination. With respect to witness statements that were claimed to be subject to the peer-review privilege, the trial court ordered Heather Hill to provide the name of the witnesses and the length of the statements. In addition, the trial court ordered that upon Ms. Manley's request, those statements would be submitted to the court for an in camera review. The trial court also ordered that reports of injuries pertaining to other patients be produced by Heather Hill. Although the patients' names were to be redacted, Ms. Manley was to be provided with a brief description of the incidents and injuries covering the period of time of up to five years prior to Mrs. Manley's death.
{¶ 7} On March 8, 2007, Heather Hill filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of the trial court's February 13, 2007 order granting Ms. Manley's motion to compel. Attached to this motion was the affidavit of Ella Barney, Vice President of Clinical Services at Heather Hill from August 2002 until January 31, 2004. She averred that in her position, she reviewed incident reports prepared by Heather Hill staff and that those reports were "prepared for use by [the] Quality Assurance Committee at Heather Hill."
{¶ 8} On March 15, 2007, Heather Hill filed the instant appeal. Heather Hill raises two assignments of error: *Page 159
{¶ 9} "[1.] The trial court abused its discretion in issuing an Order for an in camera inspection of incident reports regarding Patricia Manley because the incident reports are protected from discovery under Ohio Revised Code §
{¶ 10} "[2.] The trial court abused its discretion in issuing an Order to provide descriptions of injuries to other residents because such information is protected against discovery by the Ohio Peer Review Statutes."
{¶ 11} Standard of Review
{¶ 12} We review a trial court's discovery orders under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Simeone v. GirardCity Bd. of Edn.,
{¶ 13} The Peer-Review Privilege
{¶ 14} R.C.
{¶ 15} R.C.
{¶ 16} "(A) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of * * * the Revised Code, an incidentreport * * * and the contents of an incident report orrisk management report are not subject to discovery in, and are not admissible in evidence in the trial of, a tort action. An individual who prepares or has knowledge of the contents of an incident report or risk management report shall not testify and shall not be required to testify in a tort action as to the contents of the report." (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 17} R.C.
{¶ 18} R.C.
{¶ 19} "`Peer review committee' means a utilization review committee, quality assessment committee, performance improvement committee, tissue committee, credentialing committee, or other committee that does either of the following:
{¶ 20} "(a) Conducts professional credentialing or quality review activities involving the competence of, professional conduct of, or quality of care provided by health care providers, including both individuals who provide health care and entities that provide health care;
{¶ 21} "(b) Conducts any other attendant hearing process initiated as a result of a peer review committee's recommendations or actions."
{¶ 22} In order to invoke the peer-review privilege, it is incumbent upon the defendant to establish that the documents being sought were prepared by or for the use of a peer-review committee. Rinaldi v. City View Nursing Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 8th Dist. No. 85867,
{¶ 23} In Camera Inspection of andDisclosure of "Incident Reports"
{¶ 24} In its first assignment of error, Heather Hill claims that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering an in camera inspection of Mrs. Manley's incident reports. Specifically, Heather Hill objects to the following order regarding the in camera review of and possible disclosure of incident reports relating to Mrs. Manley:
{¶ 25} "Plaintiff seeks copies of incident reports pertaining to Mrs. Manley; the Court orders these produced if not a record for peer review purposes as opposed to the patient's medical record, per # 3 D above [regarding witness statements]. The procedure outlined in # 3 D to provide copies for in camera inspection applies." *Page 161
{¶ 26} Heather Hill argues that the incident reports Ms. Manley seeks are, by definition, peer-review documents that are neither subject to an in camera inspection nor discoverable. Thus, Heather Hill maintains that "`incident reports' are protected against discovery under the peer review privilege without the need for an in camera inspection."
{¶ 27} At the outset, we note that part of the confusion in this case stems from the fact that the parties and the trial court refer to the documents sought as "incident reports." As evidenced by the italicized language above, the statutory definition of "incident report" is limited in its scope to documents "prepared by or for the use of a peer review committee" and does not encompass every injury report recorded. Thus, the fact that a document is referred to as an "incident report" or describes an injury or incident does not necessarily mean that it falls within the statutory definition of "incident report." See, e.g., Rinaldi,
{¶ 28} With these principles in mind, we find that there is no evidence in the record to establish that the documents sought were prepared for use by a peer-review committee or that there was in fact a peer-review committee at Heather Hill. Although Heather Hill attempts to rely on the affidavit of its Vice President of Clinical Services, in which she stated that she had reviewed incident reports prepared by Heather Hill staff and that those reports were "prepared for use by [the] Quality Assurance Committee at Heather Hill," this affidavit was attached to Heather Hill's motion for reconsideration and was not considered by the trial court. Nor can we consider it.
{¶ 29} As the court noted in Manor Care ofCanton, Inc.,
{¶ 30} Heather Hill, however, claims that the peer-review statutes preclude an in camera review. We disagree. There is nothing in the peer-review statutes that forbids a trial court from holding an in camera review to determine whether documents are privileged. The peer-review statutes were amended in 2003. Although the current statutes are couched in stronger language than their predecessors, the statutes do not state that an in camera review of the documents sought is disallowed. Had the General Assembly intended to preclude an in camera review, it could have included that language in the amended statutes, but it did not. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that when the meaning of a statute is unambiguous, "it must be applied as written and no further interpretation is necessary. Unambiguous statutes are to be applied according to the plain meaning of the words used, and courts are not free to delete or insert other words." Statev. Hull,
{¶ 31} In this regard, we would be remiss if we did not address our previous decision in Tenan v.Huston,
{¶ 32} Upon closer analysis, we do not believe that the current statutes prohibit an in camera review when the record is devoid of evidence to establish that the records sought are in fact "incident reports" within the statutory definition of R.C.
{¶ 33} Heather Hill cites several decisions to support its position that an in camera review is not allowed.Doe v. Mt. Carmel Health Sys., 10th Dist. No. 05AP-435,
{¶ 34} The court in Huntsman held that "[t]he current version of [R.C.
{¶ 35} Heather Hill's reliance onQuinton is also misplaced. In Quinton, the court held that the trial court had abused its discretion in ordering the production of an incident report. However, contrary to Heather Hill's assertion, there was absolutely no discussion as to whether the peer-review statutes preclude an in camera review. Furthermore, the Quinton court based its holding on the fact that "there was evidence [an affidavit] provided by appellant that the report in this case was an incident report prepared for use by a peer review committee."Quinton, 2006-Ohio-4238,
{¶ 36} The instant case is more similar toRinaldi than Quinton, since in this case there was no evidence presented to show that the records sought were incident reports, i.e., documents prepared by or for the use of a peer-review committee, or that there was a peer-review committee in existence. In fact, the trial court recognized that there was a dispute as to whether the records were prepared in connection with the peer-review process and ordered an in camera *Page 164
inspection to review the records sought. Ordering an in camera inspection was therefore the means by which the trial court would be able to determine whether the documents were in fact privileged. The trial court understood that "not every inquiry made by a peer constitutes a peer review, and not every question a committee member asks necessarily leads to information to be used by the committee." Manor Care of Canton,
{¶ 37} Our holding is consistent with other areas where the issue of privilege has been raised, such as in the context of the attorney-client or physician-patient privilege, and where courts have used the in camera process in order to determine whether such documents are privileged or whether they should be ordered to be produced. The underlying rationale for holding an in camera inspection "serves two functions: `first, it allows the trial court to make an informed decision as to the evidentiary nature of the material in question rather than depending on the representations of counsel. Secondly, the in-camera inspection allows the trial court to discern that aspect of the evidence, which has evidentiary value from that which does not, as well as to allow the trial court to restrict the availability of that evidence, which has limited evidentiary value.'" Sweet v. Sweet, 11th Dist. No. 2004-A-0062,
{¶ 38} We believe that this rationale applies with equal force to instances where the peer-review privilege is raised and where insufficient proof is presented that the documents sought fall within the statutory definition of incident reports, prepared for use by a peer-review committee. Because an in camera review was necessary in this case for the trial court to determine whether the records sought are privileged, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ordering of an in camera inspection of the records sought.
{¶ 39} Heather Hill's first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 40} Production of Other Patients' InjuryReports
{¶ 41} In its second assignment of error, Heather Hill contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the production of injury reports of other patients. Again, Heather Hill claims that these reports are privileged under R.C.
{¶ 42} The trial court's order states: *Page 165
{¶ 43} "The Court will not order release of patients' names but Plaintiff is entitled to reports of injuries, including a description of the event and injury. A period of five years preceding the patient's death in this case does not seem unreasonable."
{¶ 44} There is no indication that the information sought is contained in an incident report, as alleged by Heather Hill. In this respect, Heather Hill's reliance on the Cook v. Toledo Hosp. decision is without merit. In Cook,
{¶ 45} In conclusion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Heather Hill to produce reports of injuries sustained by other patients.
{¶ 46} Heather Hill's second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶ 47} The judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
RICE, P.J., and O'TOOLE, J., concur.
Cook v. Toledo Hosp. , 2006 Ohio 5278 ( 2006 )
Tedeschi v. Atrium Ctrs., L.L.C. , 2012 Ohio 2929 ( 2012 )
Smith v. Cleveland Clinic , 197 Ohio App. 3d 524 ( 2011 )
Brahm v. DHSC, L.L.C. , 2016 Ohio 1207 ( 2016 )
Brahm v. DHSC, L.L.C. , 2016 Ohio 1206 ( 2016 )
Brahm v. DHSC, L.L.C. , 2016 Ohio 1205 ( 2016 )
Brahm v. DHSC, L.L.C. , 2016 Ohio 1204 ( 2016 )
SER HCR Manorcare v. Hon. James C. Stucky, Judge ( 2015 )
Giusti v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr. , 2008 Ohio 4333 ( 2008 )
Watkins v. Good Samaritan Hosp. of Cincinnati , 2016 Ohio 7458 ( 2016 )
Howell v. Park E. Care & Rehab. , 2018 Ohio 2054 ( 2018 )
Treasurer of Cuyahoga Cty. v. Robshir Properties, L.L.C. , 2019 Ohio 535 ( 2019 )