Department of Financial & Professional Regulation v. Walgreen
970 N.E.2d 552
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Petitioner DFPR issued three subpoenas July 1, 2010 seeking all incident reports of medication error involving three Walgreens pharmacists.
- Walgreen Company moved to dismiss the enforcement petition under Illinois Code 2-619(a) arguing privilege under the Patient Safety Act and the Medical Studies Act.
- Walgreens submitted affidavits asserting STARS reports are confidential, privileged patient safety work product transmitted to a PSO; Walgreen claimed no other incident reports exist besides STARS.
- Petitioner contended the subpoenas were broad and could reach incident reports outside STARS; contested the scope of privilege under the Patient Safety Act and argued Medical Studies Act could apply to pharmacies.
- Circuit court granted dismissal, holding STARS reports were patient safety work product privileged under the Patient Safety Act, and noted the Medical Studies Act applied to pharmacies.
- On review, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, but separately noted the Medical Studies Act does not apply to pharmacies as framed by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Patient Safety Act prohibit disclosure of incident reports? | Petitioner argues the Act does not bar seeking incident reports. | Walgreen asserts STARS reports are privileged work product under the Act. | No, STARS reports are privileged as patient safety work product. |
| Are all incident reports maintained by Walgreen privileged under the Act? | Petitioner contends other incident reports may exist outside STARS and could be non-privileged. | Walgreen asserts the only incident reports pertaining to medication error are STARS reports, which are privileged. | The only responsive documents are privileged STARS reports; no other incident reports create a genuine issue. |
| Does the Medical Studies Act apply to pharmacies for privilege? | Petitioner asserts the Act applies to pharmacies as a privilege for internal quality control. | Walgreen contends the statute does apply to pharmacies; the circuit court correctly applied it. | The circuit court erred in applying the Medical Studies Act to pharmacies; but the overall dismissal was proper on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (Celotex informs movant's burden on summary judgment)
- Pietro v. Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc., 348 Ill. App. 3d 541 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (Medical Studies Act privilege scope for pharmacies)
- Williams v. Covenant Medical Center, 316 Ill. App. 3d 682 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2000) (distinguishes Celotex-type motions from traditional motions to dismiss)
- Krautsack v. Anderson, 223 Ill. 2d 541 (Ill. 2006) (statutory interpretation when interpreting plain language)
- People v. Jamison, 229 Ill. 2d 184 (Ill. 2008) (interpretation of statutory text in other contexts)
- Taylor v. Pekin Insurance Co., 231 Ill. 2d 390 (Ill. 2008) (interpretation principles for insurance and related statutes)