BEST WISHES FOR
A
HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON
TO YOU
Friday, December 18, 2015
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Rules on Discoverability of a Doctor's Credentials File Materials in Med Mal Case
In the recent Opinion in the case of Vaccaro v. Scranton Quincy Hospital Company,
LLC, et.al., No. 2014-CV-7675 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 8, 2015 Nealon, J.),
Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas
addressed discovery issues raised by the Plaintiff in a medical malpractice
action.
In this matter, the Plaintiff sought to compel the Defendant hospital to produce the medical malpractice litigation history records that the hospital obtained relative to the Defendant Obstetrician in connection with the Obstetrician’s initial application or clinical privileges. The Plaintiff also sought the production of the bi-annual “ongoing professional practice evaluation” reports prepared by the hospital with respect to the Defendant-Obstetrician. Also at issue under the motion to compel, were two (2) warning letters that the hospital’s Chief Medical Officer and Medical Records Consultant forwarded to the Defendant-Obstetrician regarding delinquent medical records.
The hospital contended that these “credentials file” materials were protected from discovery by the Peer Review Protection Act.
After providing a thorough review of the Peer Review
Protection Act in conjunction with the rules of discovery,
Judge Nealon generally noted that, under the Peer Review Protection Act, records
that are generated or maintained by hospitals in ordinary course of business,
rather than as part of a peer review or quality assurance process by hospital
“review organization,” are not shielded from discovery.
Accordingly, the court ruled that the Obstetrician’s malpractice claims information compiled by the hospital in connection with the Obstetrician’s initial application for clinical privileges was not protected from discovery. The court found that these documents were not prepared by or submitted to the Peer Review or a Patient Safety Committee. The Court also noted that these documents were relevant to the Plaintiff’s corporate liability claim against the hospital for allegedly failing to select and retain only competent physicians.
Judge Nealon also ruled that the two (2) written warnings prepared by the Medical Records Department representatives addressed to the Obstetrician did not involve the disclosure of peer review information that was developed as part of a quality assurance examination and, as such, these records were also found to be discoverable.
The Court generally noted that the malpractice history materials and medical records warnings did not come with a blanket protection from the Peer Review Act merely by being placed in the Obstetrician’s credentials file.
The Court did otherwise also rule that the bi-annual professional practice evaluations which were submitted to the hospital’s Quality Management Department for the express purpose of assessing professional competence and improving the quality of patient care, and which were specifically classified as confidential and privileged peer review information, were immune from discovery under the Peer Review Protection Act.
Overall, the Plaintiff's motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part.
In this matter, the Plaintiff sought to compel the Defendant hospital to produce the medical malpractice litigation history records that the hospital obtained relative to the Defendant Obstetrician in connection with the Obstetrician’s initial application or clinical privileges. The Plaintiff also sought the production of the bi-annual “ongoing professional practice evaluation” reports prepared by the hospital with respect to the Defendant-Obstetrician. Also at issue under the motion to compel, were two (2) warning letters that the hospital’s Chief Medical Officer and Medical Records Consultant forwarded to the Defendant-Obstetrician regarding delinquent medical records.
The hospital contended that these “credentials file” materials were protected from discovery by the Peer Review Protection Act.
 |
| Judge Terrence R. Nealon Lackawanna County |
Accordingly, the court ruled that the Obstetrician’s malpractice claims information compiled by the hospital in connection with the Obstetrician’s initial application for clinical privileges was not protected from discovery. The court found that these documents were not prepared by or submitted to the Peer Review or a Patient Safety Committee. The Court also noted that these documents were relevant to the Plaintiff’s corporate liability claim against the hospital for allegedly failing to select and retain only competent physicians.
Judge Nealon also ruled that the two (2) written warnings prepared by the Medical Records Department representatives addressed to the Obstetrician did not involve the disclosure of peer review information that was developed as part of a quality assurance examination and, as such, these records were also found to be discoverable.
The Court generally noted that the malpractice history materials and medical records warnings did not come with a blanket protection from the Peer Review Act merely by being placed in the Obstetrician’s credentials file.
The Court did otherwise also rule that the bi-annual professional practice evaluations which were submitted to the hospital’s Quality Management Department for the express purpose of assessing professional competence and improving the quality of patient care, and which were specifically classified as confidential and privileged peer review information, were immune from discovery under the Peer Review Protection Act.
Overall, the Plaintiff's motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Punitive Damages Claim Allowed to Proceed in Dog Bite Case
In his recent decision in the case of Ramana v. Diaz, PICS Case No. 15-1738 (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 26, 2015 Zulick, J.), Judge Arthur L. Zulick of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas ruled that punitive damages may be imposed upon a dog owner who had knowledge of the risks posed by their dogs after repeated prior attacks after which the dog owners failed to take any action.
In this matter, the court denied the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections seeking to strike the punitive damages claims.
After reviewing the current status of Pennsylvania law on punitive damages claims, the court found that the Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to support the claim. In this regard, the court noted that the Plaintiff had alleged that the dogs at issue had come on to the Plaintiff’s property on three (3) prior occasions and had attacked people on those occasions. The Plaintiffs additionally alleged that the dog owners were aware of the dogs’ propensities and that the Defendants failed to confine or control their dogs.
I do not have a copy of this decision. A copy may be secured by calling the Instant Case Service of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly at 1-800-276-7427 and paying a small fee.
Source: "Digest of Recent Opinions, and" Pennsylvania Law Weekly (December 1, 2015).
In this matter, the court denied the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections seeking to strike the punitive damages claims.
After reviewing the current status of Pennsylvania law on punitive damages claims, the court found that the Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to support the claim. In this regard, the court noted that the Plaintiff had alleged that the dogs at issue had come on to the Plaintiff’s property on three (3) prior occasions and had attacked people on those occasions. The Plaintiffs additionally alleged that the dog owners were aware of the dogs’ propensities and that the Defendants failed to confine or control their dogs.
I do not have a copy of this decision. A copy may be secured by calling the Instant Case Service of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly at 1-800-276-7427 and paying a small fee.
Source: "Digest of Recent Opinions, and" Pennsylvania Law Weekly (December 1, 2015).
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Appeal in "Named Driver Only" Policy Case
Tort Talkers may recall the prior November 13, 2014 Tort Talk post on the Montgomery County case of An v. Gillmore & Victoria Fire and Cas. Co. in which that court upheld the validity of a "Named Driver Only" policy. (Click HERE to view that trial court post).
Click HERE to view the Tort Talk Post on the Superior Court decision affirming the trial court's decision.
Note that this is not a Named Driver Exclusion provision case.
Rather, a "Named Driver Only" policy is an automobile insurance policy that provides liability coverage only for the named insured driver that is listed in the policy. As stated, the trial court and the Superior Court have upheld the validity of such policies.
UPDATE: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has denied the Plaintiff's Petition for Allowacne of Appeal by Order only. An v. Victoria Fire and Cas. Co., No. 377 MAL 2015 (Pa. Dec. 8, 2015).
As such, the Superior Court's affirmance on the validity of "Named Driver Only" stands.
Click this LINK to view the Supreme Court's Order.
I send thanks to Attorney Victor M. Verbeke, a Managing Attorney in the Plymouth Meeting office of The Law Office of Jill Snyder for bringing this Order to my attention.
Click HERE to view the Tort Talk Post on the Superior Court decision affirming the trial court's decision.
Note that this is not a Named Driver Exclusion provision case.
Rather, a "Named Driver Only" policy is an automobile insurance policy that provides liability coverage only for the named insured driver that is listed in the policy. As stated, the trial court and the Superior Court have upheld the validity of such policies.
UPDATE: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has denied the Plaintiff's Petition for Allowacne of Appeal by Order only. An v. Victoria Fire and Cas. Co., No. 377 MAL 2015 (Pa. Dec. 8, 2015).
As such, the Superior Court's affirmance on the validity of "Named Driver Only" stands.
Click this LINK to view the Supreme Court's Order.
I send thanks to Attorney Victor M. Verbeke, a Managing Attorney in the Plymouth Meeting office of The Law Office of Jill Snyder for bringing this Order to my attention.
Defendant's Use of Contention Interrogatories Upheld
In the case of Rogers v. Thomas, No. 2012-CV-1464 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 23, 2015 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon upheld a defendant's right to serve and receive responses to "contention interrogatories" in a personal injury matter.
This personal injury case arose out of a shooting incident. The Plaintiffs sued the shooter, the shooter's father, and the father's gun store business.
The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with myriad allegations of liability. During discovery, the defense filed "contention interrogatories" to which the Plaintiff objected and also provided general, non-specific responses. The matter came before the court on a defense motion to compel.
In granting the motion to compel, the court noted that the contention interrogatories followed the defendant's efforts to secure information through more typical discovery requests. The contention interrogatories were designed to elicit facts that the Plaintiff planned to prove at trial in support of the new allegations and theories of liability set forth in the Amended Complaint. The contention interrogatories reference specific paragraphs and allegations in the Amended Complaint and sought discovery in support of these allegations.
Referring to the Explanatory Note to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1, Judge Nealon noted that contention interrogatories typically follow standard discovery requests and are designed to narrow the issues for trial. See Op. at p. 6-7. The court noted that contention interrogatories are particularly warranted when a defendant is faced with circular or ambiguous allegations.
After finding that the Plaintiff's generic responses to the contention interrogatories and simple reference to documents and expert reports previously produced to be insufficient, the court granted the Defendant's motion to compel.
Anyone wishing to secure a copy of Judge Nealon's Opinion in Rogers v. Thomas may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
This personal injury case arose out of a shooting incident. The Plaintiffs sued the shooter, the shooter's father, and the father's gun store business.
The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with myriad allegations of liability. During discovery, the defense filed "contention interrogatories" to which the Plaintiff objected and also provided general, non-specific responses. The matter came before the court on a defense motion to compel.
In granting the motion to compel, the court noted that the contention interrogatories followed the defendant's efforts to secure information through more typical discovery requests. The contention interrogatories were designed to elicit facts that the Plaintiff planned to prove at trial in support of the new allegations and theories of liability set forth in the Amended Complaint. The contention interrogatories reference specific paragraphs and allegations in the Amended Complaint and sought discovery in support of these allegations.
Referring to the Explanatory Note to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1, Judge Nealon noted that contention interrogatories typically follow standard discovery requests and are designed to narrow the issues for trial. See Op. at p. 6-7. The court noted that contention interrogatories are particularly warranted when a defendant is faced with circular or ambiguous allegations.
After finding that the Plaintiff's generic responses to the contention interrogatories and simple reference to documents and expert reports previously produced to be insufficient, the court granted the Defendant's motion to compel.
Anyone wishing to secure a copy of Judge Nealon's Opinion in Rogers v. Thomas may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
Friday, December 4, 2015
Vote On Whether To Increase Mandatory Retirement Age for Pennsylvania State Judges to Appear on Ballot in April, 2016
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Judge Minora Addresses Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation in Products Case
The decision is of note as it provides a detailed analysis of the current status of the law of Pennsylvania pertaining to the exercise of jurisdiction over foreign corporations.
Anyone wishing to review this decision by Judge Minora in Schoenberg v. General Motors, LLC may click this LINK.
Source of image: nersp.osg.ufl.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
