C.A. v. Eric Bentolila, M.D. (071702)
99 A.3d 317
| N.J. | 2014Background
- In May 2007 an infant (C.A.) suffered severe brain injury during birth at The Valley Hospital; plaintiffs sued the hospital and clinicians for malpractice.
- Hospital staff held a post-incident "round-table" meeting; Director of Patient Safety Michael Mutter prepared a June 1, 2007 memorandum (DV2) memorializing that discussion.
- Plaintiffs moved to compel production of DV2 and other investigative records; the trial court found the hospital had "substantially complied" with the Patient Safety Act and shielded DV2 under the Act’s absolute privilege.
- The Appellate Division reversed, applying 2008 Department of Health regulations (promulgated after DV2 was created) and holding DV2 was not privileged because it did not meet the regulations’ exclusivity and procedural requirements.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division: it held DV2 is privileged under the Patient Safety Act as it existed in 2007 because the hospital’s evaluative process satisfied the statute’s requirements in effect at that time; later 2008 regulations could not be retroactively imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DV2 is privileged under the Patient Safety Act | DV2 is not privileged because the hospital’s process failed to comply with the Act’s required team composition and procedures (as clarified by later regulations) | DV2 is privileged because the hospital’s pre-regulation patient safety plan and round-table process satisfied the statutory self-critical analysis requirement in effect when DV2 was created | Court held DV2 privileged under the Patient Safety Act as applied in 2007; privilege attaches when the process meets the statute in force at the time document was created |
| Whether the 2008 implementing regulations govern documents created before their effective date | Regulations reflect statutory requirements and should inform the meaning of the statute; any curative change should apply retroactively | Retroactive application of 2008 regulations to documents created in 2007 is improper; facilities were governed only by the statute until regulations took effect | Court held the Appellate Division erred by applying the 2008 regulations retroactively; only the statute governed DV2’s creation date |
| Whether privilege requires documents be created "exclusively" for Patient Safety Act processes | Plaintiffs: privilege limited to documents created exclusively for Act processes (per 2008 regs) | Defendants: exclusivity is not a statutory requirement; privilege should not be negated by concurrent/passing compliance with other purposes | Court held exclusivity requirement derived from later regulation and could not be imposed retroactively; the statute itself did not require exclusivity in 2007 |
| Whether trial judge may review privileged DV2 to assess witness credibility | Plaintiffs: privileged material should be disclosed to trial judge for credibility determinations | Defendants: privileged documents must remain confidential and not be used in litigation | Court held DV2 is privileged and "shall not be used for any purpose in this case," reversing trial-court allowance of judicial access for credibility assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Christy v. Salem, 366 N.J. Super. 535, 841 A.2d 937 (App. Div.) (articulates balancing approach to peer-review/ evaluative materials discovery)
- Payton v. N.J. Turnpike Authority, 148 N.J. 524, 691 A.2d 321 (1997) (addresses discovery versus public-interest privilege considerations)
- Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 25 A.3d 221 (2011) (standard of appellate review for discovery rulings)
- State v. J.G., 201 N.J. 369, 990 A.2d 1122 (2010) (privileges construed narrowly)
- Bundy v. Sinopoli, 243 N.J. Super. 563, 580 A.2d 1101 (Law Div.) (context on hospital peer-review and quality-improvement processes)