Brahm v. DHSC, L.L.C.
2016 Ohio 1205
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Mary Kathleen Brahm (72) suffered a STEMI and underwent emergency cardiac catheterization at Affinity Medical Center; a coronary perforation occurred during stenting and she died the next day.
- Brahm (executor) sued Affinity, Dr. Surmitis, and others for medical negligence.
- Plaintiff sought facility- and physician-specific cath-lab statistics (procedure volumes and complication/morbidity/mortality rates), including data submitted to registries such as the ACC.
- Affinity asserted the requested records were peer review/quality-assurance materials protected by R.C. 2305.252 and moved to prohibit discovery.
- The trial court ordered (1) production of procedure counts and (2) production of complication-rate documents to the court for in-camera review to determine privilege.
- Affinity appealed only the in-camera-review portion; the Fifth District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the in-camera inspection order was not a final, appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's order compelling production of documents for in-camera review is a final, appealable order | Brahm argued trial court may inspect documents to determine privilege; production to court does not breach privilege unless documents are ordered produced to the opposing party | Affinity argued the order effectively compels disclosure of peer-review materials and is final/appealable under R.C. 2305.252 and R.C. 2505.02 because it resolves discovery of privileged matter | Court held the in-camera review order is not a final, appealable order because it does not itself direct production to the adversary and the trial court retained jurisdiction to rule on discoverability; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether an in-camera inspection necessarily violates the peer-review statute (R.C. 2305.252) | Brahm relied on precedent permitting in-camera review to determine whether documents are privileged | Affinity relied on cases (and statutory language) asserting courts cannot be used to compel peer-review records or to circumvent confidentiality, arguing even in-camera review breaches the statute | Court rejected the view that in-camera review per se violates the statute in these circumstances and concluded an in-camera inspection is an appropriate method to determine privilege when the record’s nature is unclear |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. White v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 79 Ohio St.3d 543 (jurisdictional requirement that appeals be from final orders)
- General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. of North Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (final-judgment rule for appellate jurisdiction)
- Denham v. New Carlisle, 86 Ohio St.3d 594 (finality requirements)
- Smith v. Chen, 142 Ohio St.3d 411 (orders compelling discovery of privileged matter are provisional remedies; standards for interlocutory appeals)
- Huntsman v. Aultman Hosp., 160 Ohio App.3d 196 (discussing limits on using peer-review records to obtain information and statutory scope)
- Manley v. Heather Hill, Inc., 175 Ohio App.3d 155 (in-camera review appropriate when privilege status is unclear)
- Ferraro v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 149 Ohio App.3d 301 (finality and Civ.R. 54(B) principles)