Griffith v. Aultman Hosp.
2017 Ohio 8293
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent Howard Griffith underwent surgery at Aultman Hospital in May 2012; he suffered a catastrophic event on May 6 and later died. Plaintiff Gene’a Griffith, executrix, sought Decedent’s complete medical record.
- Aultman provided records maintained in its medical records department but withheld certain monitoring strips and other documents that had been retained by risk management and not placed in the medical records department.
- Griffith sued under R.C. 3701.74 and R.C. 2317.48 to compel production; initial appellate decision by this court limited “medical record” to materials maintained by the medical records department.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding the physical location is irrelevant and the definition turns on whether the provider decided to keep data generated in the course of care that pertains to the patient’s medical history/diagnosis/prognosis/condition.
- On remand, limited discovery followed. Aultman asserted it had produced the complete medical record; during discovery additional pages were produced and risk management personnel were instructed not to answer questions based on asserted privileges.
- The trial court granted Aultman summary judgment and denied Griffith’s motion to compel; this appeal reverses and remands, finding genuine issues remain and that privilege was improperly applied to non-privileged medical records and discoverable factual information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aultman produced Decedent’s entire medical record under Ohio Supreme Court’s definition | Griffith: Aultman failed to produce all records (risk management documents, monitor strips); additional pages later produced show genuine dispute | Aultman: It has produced the complete medical record; records not in medical records dept. are not additional medical records or were privileged | Court: Genuine issue of material fact exists; Aultman did not meet its summary-judgment burden to show complete production |
| Whether documents held by risk management are protected by attorney-client or work-product privileges | Griffith: Underlying medical records compiled before litigation are not transmuted into privileged material by transfer to risk management; factual information is discoverable | Aultman: Risk management acted at direction of counsel; materials and testimony are privileged/work-product | Court: Attorney-client privilege not established for underlying medical records; work-product protection does not bar factual information here; public-policy/good-cause exceptions apply |
| Whether trial court properly denied motion to compel deposition answers and discovery responses | Griffith: Risk management had exclusive knowledge; answers required and good cause shown under Civ.R. 26(B)(3) | Aultman: Questions seek privileged information; refusal appropriate | Court: Denial was erroneous; trial court misconstrued law and abused discretion by upholding blanket privilege claims |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate after remand under the clarified definition of medical record | Griffith: After Supreme Court clarification, material facts remain as to existence and production of records | Aultman: Its prior production and interrogatory responses suffice | Court: Summary judgment improper; remand for further proceedings and discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (party seeking summary judgment must meet initial burden identifying record evidence)
- Griffith v. Aultman Hosp., 146 Ohio St.3d 196 (Ohio 2016) (definition of “medical record” focuses on provider’s decision to keep data, not physical location)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Jackson v. Greger, 110 Ohio St.3d 488 (Ohio 2006) (work-product/good-cause standard under Civ.R. 26)
- Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co., 91 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2001) (purposes of attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine)