Superior Court Addresses Statutory Privilege Related to Patient Safety Reports In Med Mal Cases

In the case of Boyle v. Mainline Health, Inc., No. 2454 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Sept. 10, 2025 Lazarus, P.J., King, J., and Lane, J.) (Op. by King, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a failure to provide a Patient Safety Report (PSRS) to the hospital’s Patient Safety Committee or governing board meant that the hospital could not rely upon the statutory privilege under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE). 

The court otherwise ruled that the creation of other records as part of a patient safety evaluation system did trigger the privilege under the Patient Safety and Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (PSQIA). As such, the discovery Order of the trial court was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

This matter arose out of a medical malpractice action in which the Plaintiff’s alleged that there child suffered birth injuries. During the discovery, the Plaintiffs sought documents related to the investigation of the baby’s delivery. 

In response, the Defendants produced a privilege log identifying four (4) responsive documents, the Patient Safety Occurrence Worksheet, the Situation Background Assessment/Recommendations, the Patient Safety Reporting System, and the Potential Compensible Event Report. The Defendants asserted that these documents were privileged under the MCARE Act and the PSQIA. 

The Plaintiff responded with a Motion to Compel.

After the trial court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, the case went up on appeal. As noted, the Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.  The Superior Court found that the Defendants did not meet their burden of establishing the PSRS report arose out of a matter reviewed by a patient safety committed or governing board pursuant to their Section 311(b) MCARE Act responsibilities.  As such, the Defendants were required to disclose the PSRS report.

The appellate court also reversed the portion of the trial court's Order finding that the Defendants failed to establish that the PSQIA privilege applied to certain other documents.

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

The Concurring/Dissenting Opinion by Judge Lane can be viewed HERE.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 30, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Thirdman on www.pexels.com

Superior Court Addresses Discoverability of Hospital Patient Safety Review Records

In the case of Boyle v. Main Line Health, Inc., No. 2454 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Aug. 10, 2025 King, J., Lazarus, J., and Lane, J.) (Op. by King, J.) (Lane, J. concurring and dissenting), the appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court discovery Order relative to the discoverability of hospital patient safety review records in a medical malpractice action.

The court noted that discovery Orders involving claims of privilege are immediately appealable a collateral Orders.

The Superior Court noted that hospital patient safety review records that are actually used to make MCARE mandatory reports are protected from disclosure in litigation by the Act.

In this case, the Defendant hospital had an MCARE patient safety plan and a patient safety officer. The MCARE safety patient plan established a patient safety committee pursuant to MCARE and also set forth requirements for both internal and external reporting.

The Superior Court noted that MCARE confidentiality extends to all documents, materials, or information solely prepared or created for the purpose of reporting compliance.

However, the court noted that, without evidence that the event at issue was actually submitted to a patient safety committee or governing board, the MCARE privilege cannot be established. 

The court noted that a general assertion of a particular privilege as to all documents is sufficient to preserve the privilege as to any portion of the documents.

The court also noted that, under the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act privilege, “patient safety work product” is not subject to state-law discovery. The court noted that documents produced solely in accordance with the Patient Safety Evaluation System and reported to the patient safety organization are protected under the PSQIA.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Judge Lane can be reviewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Superior Court Addresses Discoverability of Documents Under Patient Safety and Healthcare Quality Improvement Act in a Med Mal Case

In the case of Boyle v. Mainline Health, Inc., No. 2454 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. July 17, 2025 Lazarus, P.J., King, J., and Lane, J.) (Lane, J., Concurring and dissenting)(Maj. Op. by King, J.), the Superior Court ruled that reports created for the hospital’s patient safety organization constituted “deliberation or analysis of” the patient safety evaluation system. As such, the court ruled that these reports were privileged under the Patient Safety and Healthcare Quality Improvement Act. 

This case arose out of a medical malpractice lawsuit by the Plaintiffs seeking compensation for birth injuries sustained by their child.

During the course of discovery, the Defendants produced a privilege log regarding certain documents. The Plaintiff followed a discovery motion in response. The trial court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion.

On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. As part of the ruling, the Superior Court noted that the Defendants had a patient safety plan, which established a patient safety committee under MCARE.

The court found other documents that were not privileged given that those documents did not arise from a matter reviewed by the patient safety committee.

However, noted above, the court did find that certain other documents fell within the scope of the statutory privilege provided under the Patient Safety and Healthcare Quality Improvement Act.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The concurring and dissenting Opinion issued by Judge Lane can be viewed HERE.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 6, 2025).

Patient Safety Reports Ruled Admissible in Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Lahr v. Young, No. 2021-C-0010 (C.P. Lehigh Co. June 17, 2022 Caffrey, J.), the Court ruled that Defendants failed to demonstrate the certain patient safety reports generated by the medical providers while Plaintiff was in hospital to give birth were immune from discovery in this medical malpractice suit under either the Peer Review Protection Act or the privilege afforded by the Medical Care Availability and Reduction Error Act. The court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.

Anyone wishing to review this decision, may click this LINK


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 30, 2022).

Source of images: www.pexels.com.

Trial Court Rules in Favor of Discoverability in Med Mal Case of Notes Made By Patient Safety Director

In the case of Ford-Bey v. Professional Anesthesia Services North America, LLC, No. 2017-Civil-02996 (C.P. Montg. Co. March 23, 2022 Saltz, J.), the court found, in a medical malpractice action, that the notes made by a hospital employee were not protected by the confidentiality provisions of the medical care availability and reduction of error (MCARE) Act because the notes were not made for the sole purpose for complying with the patient safety reporting requirements of the MCARE Act.

According to the Opinion, this was a medical malpractice case arising from the death of the decedent after surgery.

The Defendant hospital objected to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests for notes made by the patient safety director that were prepared during a root cause analysis of the incident.

The court granted the discovery requests and ordered that the documents be produced. The hospital filed an appeal and the court issued this Rule 1925 Opinion.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 3, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by National Cancer Institute on www.unsplash.com.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Addresses Discoverability of Documents in a Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Ungurian v. Beyzman, No. 298 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. April 28, 2020 Dubow, J., Lazarus, J., Stabile, J.), the court affirmed a trial court’s granting of a Motion to Compel the production of documents in a medical malpractice case that the Defendant had asserted were protected from production in discovery by the Patient Safety Quality Improvement Act and/or the Peer Review Protection Act.

The court ruled that the documents that the Plaintiff sought were not protected by the patient safety or peer review privilege. 

The court reiterated the rule that, to establish a patient safety work product protection in terms of documents, a defendant must produce sufficient facts to show that it prepared the document for reporting to a patient safety organization and also actually reported them to the patient safety organization. 

Here, the court found that the Defendant did not allege a connection to the patient safety organization and, therefore, failed to establish a right to confidentiality. 

The court also noted that the Defendant additionally admitted that another document existed outside of the patient safety evaluation system utilized by the hospital, which resulted in the Defendant forfeiting the privilege asserted with respect to that document. 

The court found that the Defendant's assertion of the peer review privilege failed because the Defendant did not identify members of the relevant review committees at issue. The court also noted that a document produced pursuant to an event reporting policy was an event report and not a peer review report. The court additionally emphasized that a peer review must be conducted by professional healthcare providers. 

In this matter, the court found that the Defendant did not establish that the individuals who conducted the review qualified under this rule of law to allow for any privilege to apply. 

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

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Addresses Evidentiary Privileges Under MCARE Act In Med Mal Case

In the case of DelGuercio v. Tio, No. 19-CV-3604 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 26, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925(a) Order in support of its decision directing a Defendant hospital in this medical malpractice action to submit two (2) event reports and a patient safety report for an in camera review in order to facilitate a determination as to whether those materials are protected from discovery by the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 and the Peer Review Protection Act of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE). 

The court noted that the hospital, as the party asserting evidentiary privileges under these Acts, had the burden of establishing that the discovery of the reports at issue was prohibited by those statutes. The court noted that the limited submissions by the Defendant hospital raised a series of unanswered questions regarding the applicability of the claimed privileges. 

As such, rather than grant the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, the court directed the hospital to submit the disputed reports for an in camera review in an effort to resolve the unsettled issues. 

Rather than complying with this directive, the Defendant hospital filed an appeal and the court issued this Rule 1925 Opinion in support of its finding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to have ordered the in camera review under the circumstances.

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