Large v. Heartland-Lansing of Bridgeport Ohio, L.L.C.
2013 Ohio 2877
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Large's wrongful death suit alleges death from infections tied to decedent's pressure ulcers while in Heartland-Lansing's care.
- Discovery sought DOH licensing reports/surveys around decedent's residence; materials were prepared for the facility, not a QA committee.
- Heartland-Lansing claimed the materials were privileged under R.C. 3721.02(E)(1) and/or R.C. 2305.252 as peer-review/QA documents.
- Trial court ordered production of DOH licensing reports and survey materials (requests 20 and 36); in-camera inspection issue not appealed.
- Court held DOH licensing reports not privileged; state/federal survey materials discoverable; Civ.R. 26(B)(1) allows broad discovery of relevant, non-privileged materials; no privilege destroyed by disclosure; order affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do DOH inspection reports create a privilege under R.C. 3721.02(E)(1)? | Large contends the reports are privileged. | Heartland-Lansing argues the statute creates privilege and precludes discovery. | No privilege; reports are not discoverable only if privileged; they are discoverable if relevant. |
| Are family/patient complaint reports protected by the peer-review privilege under R.C. 2305.252? | Large seeks these reports under discovery. | Heartland-Lansing asserts confidentiality under peer-review privilege. | Not privileged; reports may be discovered; openness policy applies. |
| Is an in-camera inspection required before ordering discovery of the DOH reports? | Not required; no privilege exists to trigger in-camera inspection. | ||
| Are the DOH inspection reports and complaint reports relevant to the negligence action? | Reports may illuminate facility conditions relevant to care. | Quality of evidence may be insufficient to prove negligence per se. | Yes; materials are relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. |
| Did discovery of the DOH reports conflict with statutory privileges? | Discovery permitted; statutes do not create a discovery privilege here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2009) (statutory privilege questions reviewed de novo; evidentiary determination with discovery context)
- Standen v. Standen, 2007-Ohio-5477 (Ohio 2007) (statutory interpretation of privilege; de novo review for statutory questions)
- Gates v. Brewer, 2 Ohio App.3d 347 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981) (peer-review processes and their confidentiality limits)