Harrison v. Munson Healthcare, Inc.
304 Mich. App. 1
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Harrison sues Dr. Potthoff and Munson Healthcare for a burn from a Bovie during thyroid surgery at Munson Medical Center.
- Intraoperative memory is vague; Munson contends the cause may be unknown and possible accidental unholstering.
- An incident/occurrence report later suggested the Bovie was laid on the drape and not placed in its holster.
- Judge Rodgers first mistrial due to perceived conflict between defense theory and incident-report findings; sanctions were later imposed.
- A in camera and evidentiary hearing found the incident report contained privileged and non-privileged content; sanctions against Munson and Hall were upheld and remanded for individualized sanctions.
- Munson appeals on privilege and sanctions, Harrison cross-appeals for additional sanctions; Hall also appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the incident report is privileged from discovery under peer-review laws | Harrison | Munson | Partial: first-page factual data not privileged; remaining deliberative content protected; sanctions allowed for inconsistent defense |
| Whether sanctions against Munson and Hall were proper | Harrison | Munson | Affirmed sanctions; remanded for individualized assessment between Munson and Hall |
| Whether Munson had duty to review the incident report before trial | Harrison | Munson | No absolute duty barred from reviewing; court rejected broad shield argument and allowed consideration of known facts |
| Whether the defense was contradicted by contemporaneous findings in the incident report | Harrison | Munson | Yes; findings contradicted the defense theory; sanctions warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Monty v Warren Hosp Corp, 422 Mich 138 (1985) (guides peer-review privilege, in-camera review required)
- Centennial Healthcare Mgt Corp v Dep’t of Consumer & Indus Servs, 254 Mich App 275 (2002) (limits breadth of privilege; distinguishes facts from protected deliberations)
- Coburn v Seda, 101 Wash 2d 270 (1984) (protects hospital peer-review reports, but not raw facts)
- Davidson v Light, 79 FRD 137 (D. Colo. 1978) (distinguishes incident reports as not always privileged)
- Bredice v Doctors Hosp, Inc., 50 FRD 249 (D.D.C. 1970) (early peer-review privilege case stressing confidentiality for staff-review purposes)
- Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp v Eighth Judicial Dist Court, 113 Nev 521, 936 P.2d 844 (1997) (incident reports not always privileged; context matters)