Grosshuesch v. Edward Hospital
2017 IL App (2d) 160972
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In Oct. 2013 Abigail Grosshuesch delivered a premature infant, Isabella, who died Nov. 1, 2013; plaintiff later sued Edward Hospital for wrongful death and survival claims.
- After the plaintiff complained in Dec. 2013, the hospital’s medical staff quality committee (MSQC) process led MSQC liaison Nancy Rosenbery to consult two peer reviewers and to record notes summarizing their input on Feb. 24–25, 2014.
- Plaintiff served discovery seeking all documentation regarding Isabella’s care; Edward Hospital refused to produce Rosenbery’s February notes, claiming protection under the Medical Studies Act (peer‑review privilege).
- The trial court ordered production of the notes, finding the hospital’s affidavits insufficient to show the notes were generated after the MSQC or its designee authorized an investigation; the hospital’s motion to reconsider was denied.
- The trial court fined the hospital $1/day for contempt for refusing to produce the notes; the hospital appealed the disclosure order and contempt finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosenbery’s Feb. 24–25, 2014 notes are privileged under the Medical Studies Act | Notes are not privileged because they were created before the MSQC authorized or was engaged in a peer‑review investigation | Notes are privileged as part of MSQC peer‑review process under hospital policy and thus protected | Court: Notes are not privileged because they were generated before the committee or its designee authorized investigation; produce the notes |
| Whether the contempt sanction should be upheld | Contempt sanction was an appropriate enforcement of discovery order | Hospital acted in good faith seeking appellate review; contempt improper | Court: Disclosure order affirmed but contempt vacated because refusal was in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Roach v. Springfield Clinic, 157 Ill.2d 29 (Ill. 1993) (privilege does not attach to information generated before a peer‑review committee is involved)
- Chicago Trust Co. v. Cook County Hosp., 298 Ill. App.3d 396 (Ill. App. 1998) (incident reports prepared before committee involvement are discoverable; broad predesignation policies cannot cloak ordinary incident documents)
- Berry v. West Suburban Hosp. Med. Ctr., 338 Ill. App.3d 49 (Ill. App. 2003) (documents authored by staff before committee engagement are information of staff, not committee, and are not privileged)
- Ardisana v. Northwest Cmty. Hosp., 342 Ill. App.3d 741 (Ill. App. 2003) (documents generated during a committee’s active investigation may be privileged when affidavits show they were created for committee use)
- Anderson v. Rush‑Copley Med. Ctr., 385 Ill. App.3d 167 (Ill. App. 2008) (materials gathered as part of an already‑underway peer‑review investigation can be privileged)