Bailey v. Manor Care of Mayfield Hts.
4 N.E.3d 1071
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Jennie Bailey, administrator of Dionne Dennard’s estate, sued Manor Care alleging negligent care that contributed to Dennard’s death after transfer to a hospital in November 2011.
- During discovery, plaintiff requested “any and all documents pertaining to Dionne Dennard,” including materials from an internal investigation and witness statements taken after Dennard’s death.
- Manor Care asserted privileges (attorney-client, work product, and Ohio peer‑review/quality‑assurance statutes) and declined to produce the investigatory file.
- The trial court granted the estate’s motion to compel and ordered production; Manor Care appealed.
- On appeal, the Eighth District reviewed whether federal law preempts Ohio peer‑review privilege and whether Manor Care met its burden to show particular documents are privileged.
- The court concluded the trial court erred by compelling production without an in camera review and remanded for the trial court to require a privilege log and inspect the disputed documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal nursing‑home resident‑rights law (42 C.F.R./42 U.S.C.) preempts Ohio peer‑review privilege | Estate: federal regs grant resident access to all records and thus preempt state peer‑review protection for these records | Manor Care: Ohio peer‑review statutes protect QA/incident/investigation files from discovery and federal law does not displace state privilege | Court: federal law does not plainly preempt Ohio peer‑review statutes; state law governs privilege issues here |
| Whether Manor Care met its burden to show the investigatory file is privileged | Estate: Manor Care failed to identify specific withheld documents or show they were created exclusively for a peer‑review committee | Manor Care: Quality Assurance Committee investigated Dennard; investigatory materials are peer‑review/ work‑product protected (affidavit of administrator) | Court: Manor Care’s general affidavit was insufficient; party asserting privilege must identify specific documents and show they were prepared for/used exclusively by peer‑review committee |
| Whether trial court properly ordered production without in camera review or privilege log | Estate: court properly ordered production because defendant didn’t timely seek protective order and asserted privilege generally | Manor Care: court erred by not allowing protective procedures and by ordering production absent review | Court: trial court erred; must order in camera inspection and require production of privilege log and related filings before compelling disclosure |
| Scope of peer‑review protection (are related materials discoverable from original sources) | Estate: seeks any material relating to Dennard, including guidelines, charting, incident reports | Manor Care: broadly asserted privilege over investigatory materials | Court: peer‑review protection covers records within scope of committee, but documents available from original sources outside committee are discoverable; protection is not a blanket cloak |
Key Cases Cited
- Darby v. A‑Best Prods. Co., 102 Ohio St.3d 410 (establishes principles for federal preemption analysis) (Ohio Sup. Ct.)
- Park Assocs. v. N.Y. State Atty. Gen., 99 N.Y.2d 434 (federal statute restricts discoverability of QA committee records) (N.Y. Ct. App.)
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (determination of privilege is a question of law; rules for applying privilege) (Ohio Sup. Ct.)
- Smith v. Cleveland Clinic, 197 Ohio App.3d 524 (clarifies burden on party asserting peer‑review privilege and need to identify specific documents) (Ohio Ct. App.)