Superior Court Addresses Discoverability of Internal Post-Incident Investigative Reports in Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Griffin v. The Bryn Mawr Hospital, No. 3361 EDA 2024, 2026 Pa. Super. 53 (Pa. Super. March 19, 2026 Bowes, J., Murray, J., and Beck, J.) (Op. by Beck, J.) (Concurring and Dissenting Op. by Murray, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed whether four internal documents created by the medical providers after the hospital allegedly mishandled fetal remains were protected from disclosure under Pennsylvania’s Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE) and the Federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act.

According to the Opinion, the case arose out of a lawsuit filed by parents who alleged that the hospital mistakenly cremated the placenta instead of their fetus and later admitted to a “mix up.”

During discovery, the hospital withheld four internal reports tied to its investigation. The hospital asserted that these documents were privileged patient-safety materials generated as part of its compliance and internal review processes.

In its Opinion, the court addressed how far hospitals can shield internal investigation documents from discovery under the above-referenced state and federal patient-safety laws.

The Superior Court majority ruled that the documents were not protected under MCARE. The court found that the MCARE statute applied only to events involving direct patient care and not post-treatment conduct. The court here found that the allegations in this case did not implicate any medical treatment issues.

With regards to the application of the federal law, the federal law under the PSQIA, this court entered a split decision. The court held that three of the documents at issue were shielded under the broader scope of the PSQIA law because they were created as part of the hospital’s internal patient safety evaluation system.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority's decision may click this LINK.

Judge Murray's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Source: Article – “Pa. Superior Court Splits On MCARE Patient-Safety Privilege Case,” By Tristin Hoffman of The Legal Intelligencer (March 25, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by RDNE Stock Project on www.pexels.com.

Notable Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision on Scope of Peer Review Privilege (From August, 2021)

In the case of Leadbitter v. Keystone Anesthesia Consultants, No. 19 WAP 2020 (Pa. Aug. 17, 2021)(Op. by Saylor, J.)(Wecht, J., Concurring), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision relative to the scope of the Peer Review Protection Act.

In its decision, the court held that a hospital’s credentials committee qualified as a “review committee” for purposes of the Peer Review Protection Act to the extent it undertook peer reviews.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court additionally held that the Federal Healthcare Quality and Improvement Act of 1986 protected from disclosure the responses provided by the National Practitioner Databank to queries submitted to it, regardless of any contrary state law.

This matter arose out of a medical malpractice action. The Plaintiff sought the credentialing file of a certain doctor.  The Plaintiff was seeking this information to support their claim that the hospital’s credentialing was inadequate and allegedly led to the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff during surgery.

During the course of discovery, the hospital, while providing portions of the credentialing file, refused to disclose certain documents that contained evaluations prepared by other practitioners of the Defendant doctor’s performance, as well as responses to queries submitted to the National Practitioner Databank.

After the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel in this regard, these issues worked their way up the appellate ladder to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision summarized here.

The majority Opinion in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ledbitter noted that the Peer Review Protection Act privilege only applies to a “review committee,” which is a committee engaging in peer review. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the hospital that a credentials committee is a “review committee” to the extent that it reviewed the quality and efficiency of care provided by a healthcare practitioner.

On the Federal Healthcare Quality and Improvement Act issues, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the language of the statute and the purpose of the statute supported the hospital’s position that responses to the queries submitted to the National Practitioner Databank are privileged and that federal privilege trumps state law that would otherwise permit disclosure of that information.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion for this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Justice Wecht can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Laura A. Endler, counsel for the Geisinger Health System, for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash.com.