Lindsey v. Butterfield Health Care II, Inc.
2017 IL App (2d) 160042
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In April 2012, 88-year-old Laura Lindsey allegedly fell while a resident at Meadowbrook Manor (a long-term care facility); staff prepared an incident report on May 9, 2012.
- Plaintiff Jannie Lindsey (guardian) sued Meadowbrook for negligence in January 2014 and requested all investigation reports in discovery.
- Meadowbrook withheld the May 9 report and six witness statements, asserting privilege under the Long-Term Care Peer Review and Quality Assessment and Assurance Protection Act (Quality Assurance Act) and the Medical Studies Act, claiming preparation for its quality-assurance committee.
- The trial court reviewed the documents in camera, concluded they were factual, prepared before any committee review, and ordered production; Meadowbrook refused and was held in contempt twice.
- Meadowbrook appealed (two consolidated appeals). The appellate court reviewed statutory-interpretation issues de novo and considered prior Medical Studies Act precedent applicable to the Quality Assurance Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incident report and witness statements are privileged under the Quality Assurance Act/Medical Studies Act | Documents are not privileged because they are factual and were created before any committee review | Documents are privileged because they were prepared for the facility’s quality-assurance committee and would not exist otherwise | Not privileged; must be produced |
| Whether documents created in ordinary course but later reviewed by committee become protected | Such documents remain discoverable if prepared before peer-review process | Committee review retroactively cloaks documents with privilege | Privilege does not attach retroactively; pre-review documents discloseable |
| Whether Meadowbrook’s affidavits establishing privilege must be accepted because plaintiff filed no counteraffidavits | The affidavit shows documents were pre-committee and thus unprivileged | Affidavits should be accepted as true absent counteraffidavits | Affidavits do not create privilege when they concede documents were created prior to committee review |
| Validity of contempt findings for refusing to produce documents during appeal | Plaintiff sought enforcement of discovery order | Meadowbrook refused in good faith to seek appellate review | Discovery orders affirmed; contempt findings vacated (refusal found made in good faith) |
Key Cases Cited
- Roach v. Springfield Clinic, 157 Ill.2d 29 (Ill. 1993) (pre-committee communications are not cloaked by peer-review privilege)
- Chicago Trust Co. v. Cook County Hospital, 298 Ill. App.3d 396 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (incident reports prepared in ordinary course are not privileged merely because later reviewed by oversight committee)
- Toth v. Jensen, 272 Ill. App.3d 382 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (documents generated specifically for a peer-review committee may be protected)
- Niven v. Siqueira, 109 Ill.2d 357 (Ill. 1985) (purpose of Medical Studies Act is to encourage candid hospital peer review)