Janelle Brugaletta v. Calixto Garcia, D.O., 153 A.3d 959

Plaintiff Janelle Brugaletta sued Chilton after treatment for a ruptured appendix/pelvic abscess and subsequent right thigh/buttock fasciitis and debridements; she alleged delayed diagnosis and missed detection of a second abscess.
Chilton withheld an internal document (DCP‑2) — an "Event Detail History with all Tasks" — asserting the Patient Safety Act (PSA) privilege over self‑critical analyses and related materials.
The trial court reviewed DCP‑2 in camera, found Chilton had followed the procedural prerequisites for the PSA privilege but also found a separate serious preventable adverse event (SPAE) that Chilton failed to report to the Department and to Brugaletta.
The trial court ordered partial disclosure of DCP‑2 (redacting portions) and compelled Chilton to report the SPAE to the Department and to the patient.
Chilton appealed, arguing (1) the PSA privilege for self‑critical analysis does not depend on compliance with the SPAE reporting requirement and (2) the record did not support a finding that a reportable SPAE occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PSA privilege over materials developed in a hospital's self‑critical analysis is forfeited by failure to report a SPAE to the Department or patient	Brugaletta: failure to report justifies piercing privilege and disclosure to enforce reporting duties	Chilton: privilege is conditioned only on complying with subsection (b)/regulatory procedures for patient safety plans, not on reporting	Court of Appeals: Privilege is procedural — depends on compliance with patient safety plan/regulations, not on whether hospital reported a SPAE; privilege was improperly pierced
Whether Chilton committed a reportable SPAE and thus was required to report	Brugaletta: trial court correctly found a SPAE and reporting failure	Chilton: record does not support a finding of SPAE; causation element lacking and requires expert proof	Court of Appeals: trial court’s SPAE finding lacked sufficient evidentiary support (no adequate proof causation); reversal of reporting order
Whether the court may compel partial disclosure (redacted) of a self‑critical analysis document when reporting failure is found	Brugaletta: limited disclosure appropriate to remedy non‑reporting and encourage compliance	Chilton: neither partial nor total loss of privilege is authorized by statute/regulations for non‑reporting	Court of Appeals: disclosure order reversed — court erred in ordering partial release because privilege stands independent of reporting obligations

C.A. ex rel. Applegrad v. Bentolila, 219 N.J. 449 (N.J. 2014) (interpreting PSA privilege and distinguishing reporting obligation from self‑critical analysis privilege)
Conn v. Rebustillo, 445 N.J. Super. 349 (App. Div. 2016) (discussing distinction between privileges for reports to regulators and self‑critical analyses)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (N.J. 1974) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
Kelly v. Berlin, 300 N.J. Super. 256 (App. Div. 1997) (expert testimony required where causation not within lay understanding)
Horon Holding Corp. v. McKenzie, 341 N.J. Super. 117 (App. Div. 2001) (burden to establish evidentiary privilege prerequisites)