Federal Court Addresses Section 1983 and Whistleblower Law Issues in Employment Law Case

In the case of Krug v. Bloomsburg University, No. 4:18-CV-1669 (M.D. Pa. March 11, 2025 Wilson, J.), the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a matter of law and a new trial following the entry of a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff in a §1983, Title VII, Title IX, Whistleblower Law and PHRC case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, a former Bloomburg University Dean, brought a lawsuit claiming that he faced retaliation and was fired for helping an administrative assistant file a sexual harassment report against another employee of the school. The Plaintiff prevailed at trial and the motions at issue followed.

After reviewing the pertinent law, Judge Wilson denied the motions.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Barry Dyller, Esquire of the Wilkes-Barre, PA law firm of Dyller & Solomon, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Precludes Discovery From Grand Rounds Conference by Peer Review Committee in Med Mal Case

In the case of Houwelingen v. Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, No. 1:22-CV-01388 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2024 Wilson, J.), the court denied a Motion to Compel in the medical malpractice case.

At issue was the discoverability of a PowerPoint presentation from a grand round conference.

According to the Opinion, a grand round conference involves patient-specific presentations at a medical facility which include the retrospective review of the care those patients received. Grand round presentations are used to evaluate the quality and efficiency of the healthcare those patients received and also review how to improve such treatment.

The court ruled, after an in camera review, that the Defendant hospital’s grand rounds PowerPoint presentation was protected from discovery under Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act.

In so ruling, the court noted that protected peer review committees need not specifically have the words “peer review” in their title, nor must they limit themselves to solely conducting peer review functions, in order to secure the protections of the act.

The court noted that the patient discussion portions of the grand rounds presentations involved professional healthcare providers assessing and critiquing the care provided by other such professionals.

The court also noted that the fact that the participants in the meeting received continuing medical education credits did not preclude a finding that the information sought in discovery was afforded the protection of Peer Review Act.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.