Krusac v. Covenant Medical Center, Inc
497 Mich. 251
| Mich. | 2015Background
- Dorothy Krusac rolled off an operating table after a cardiac catheterization and died shortly thereafter; three staff witnessed the fall and an employee completed an incident report.
- John Krusac (personal representative) sued Covenant Medical Center for medical malpractice, seeking facts from the incident report during discovery.
- The trial court initially denied discovery based on the peer-review privilege but on reconsideration reviewed the report in camera and ordered production of the first page containing only objective facts, relying on Harrison v Munson Healthcare, Inc.
- Covenant sought appellate relief; the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave and stayed proceedings to decide whether objective facts in an incident report are exempt from the peer-review privilege.
- The central statutory provisions are MCL 333.20175(8) and MCL 333.21515, which protect "records, data, and knowledge" collected for or by peer-review committees established to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve patient care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether objective, contemporaneous facts in an incident report are excluded from the peer-review statutory privilege | Krusac: Harrison correct — objective facts should be producible for impeachment and cross-examining witnesses; ethical concerns if facts are hidden | Covenant: Peer-review statutes protect all records, data, and knowledge collected for/by committee, including objective facts; no statutory exception | The Court held there is no objective-facts exception; §§ 20175(8) and 21515 protect objective facts in privileged peer-review materials |
| Whether Harrison v Munson Healthcare correctly interpreted the peer-review statutes | Krusac: relied on Harrison to obtain facts | Covenant: Harrison conflicts with plain text of statutes | The Court overruled Harrison to the extent it exempted objective facts from the privilege |
| Whether § 20175(1) (medical-record disclosure duties) creates a conflict or exception to the peer-review privilege | Krusac: hospital duty to maintain full medical record implies some facts must be disclosed | Covenant: § 20175(1) addresses a distinct duty and does not abrogate the privilege | The Court held no conflict; the medical-record duty does not create a statutory exception to the peer-review privilege |
| Scope and limits of the peer-review privilege | Krusac: disclosure necessary to ensure fair trial and prevent hiding of firsthand observations | Covenant: privilege necessary to protect candid quality-assurance review and improve care | The Court emphasized the privilege covers materials collected for the committee's quality-improvement purpose but is limited to information gathered for that statutory purpose; other sources (testimony, medical record) remain available |
Key Cases Cited
- Krusac v. Covenant Med. Ctr., 496 Mich 855 (Mich. 2015) (holding peer-review privilege covers objective facts in incident reports and overruling inconsistent portions of Harrison)
- Harrison v. Munson Healthcare, Inc., 304 Mich App 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (Court of Appeals decision that created an objective-facts exception to the peer-review privilege; partially overruled)
- Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hosp. Corp., 460 Mich 26 (Mich. 1999) (discussing the statutory nature and broad scope of peer-review privilege)
- Attorney Gen. v. Bruce, 422 Mich 157 (Mich. 1985) (explaining privilege protects materials from disclosure beyond circuit-court discovery)
- Monty v. Warren Hosp. Corp., 422 Mich 138 (Mich. 1985) (guidance on identifying committees assigned a peer-review function)
- Feyz v. Mercy Mem. Hosp., 475 Mich 663 (Mich. 2006) (noting importance of candid assessments in peer-review process)
- Koontz v. Ameritech Servs., Inc., 466 Mich 304 (Mich. 2002) (acknowledging courts must apply unambiguous statutory text and not rewrite statutes)