Fravel v. Columbus Rehab. & Subacute Inst.
2016 Ohio 5807
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent, after hospitalization for a ruptured brain aneurism, resided at Columbus Rehabilitation & Subacute Institute and died January 1, 2014; plaintiff (Richard Fravel) sued the facility for wrongful death and negligence alleging a pressure-ulcer infection from inadequate care.
- Plaintiff served requests for production including "quality indicator reports" (QIRs) and "facility key indicator reports" (FKIRs); defendants objected invoking the R.C. 2305.252 peer-review privilege.
- Plaintiff filed motions to compel; the trial court concluded the requested reports were not privileged (but narrowed scope) and ordered production of QIRs and FKIRs for the year before decedent's admission.
- After the court's March 22, 2016 decision, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration attaching a new affidavit from the facility representative (Howard) and then timely appealed the trial court order.
- The appellate court declined to consider the post-judgment affidavit (motion for reconsideration was a nullity after a final order under R.C. 2305.252) and reviewed whether defendants met the statutory burden to prove the peer-review privilege.
- Holding: defendants failed to establish (on the record before the trial court) that a qualifying peer review committee existed or that the reports were peer-review committee records, so the peer-review privilege did not apply; the trial court's order was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether QIRs and FKIRs are protected by R.C. 2305.252 peer-review privilege | QIRs/FKIRs are not privileged because defendants did not prove the statutory prerequisites for the privilege | QIRs/FKIRs are peer-review records created/used by a qualifying quality-assurance/peer-review committee and thus are privileged | Held: Not privileged — defendants failed to establish existence of a qualifying peer-review committee or that the reports were committee records |
| Whether the appellate court may consider affidavit filed with motion for reconsideration after the trial court's final order | N/A | Affidavit shows the committee existed; should be considered as part of the record | Held: Court will not consider the post-judgment affidavit because the motion for reconsideration was a nullity after a final R.C. 2305.252 order |
| Whether plaintiff must obtain the reports from the Ohio Department of Health (original source) if peer-review privilege applies | Plaintiff: Not required because privilege does not apply here | Defendants: If reports are peer-review records, plaintiff must get them from the ODH as the original source | Held: Because privilege not established, plaintiff is not required to obtain the reports from ODH under R.C. 2305.252's original-source clause |
| Burden of proof to invoke R.C. 2305.252 privilege | Plaintiff: Defendants bear the burden and did not meet it | Defendants: Testimony/affidavit suffice to prove committee existence and records' character | Held: Defendants bear the burden and their deposition testimony/record were insufficient to meet it |
Key Cases Cited
- Tracy v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 147 (establishes discovery/abuse-of-discretion principles in negligence cases)
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (privilege discovery questions reviewed de novo; deference to trial-court factual findings)
- Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181 (discusses appellate review standard for discovery/privilege issues)
- Morgan v. Eads, 104 Ohio St.3d 142 (appellate court cannot decide based on facts not presented to trial court)
- Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (motion for reconsideration after final judgment is a nullity)
- Smith v. Cleveland Clinic, 197 Ohio App.3d 524 (mere labeling or conclusory affidavit insufficient to prove existence of a qualifying peer-review committee)