Mark D. Hall v. Broadlawns Medical Center
811 N.W.2d 478
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Broadlawns Medical Center created an internal audit of its pharmacy after a pharmacist diverted drugs, including controlled substances.
- Mark Hall, Broadlawns’ pharmacist in charge, conducted the audit independently to obtain immediate answers and actions.
- Hall provided copies of the audit to Broadlawns, Cardinal Health, and contemporaneously to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy.
- The Board later filed charges against Hall and Broadlawns; the Register sought the audit under Iowa Open Records Act.
- Broadlawns refused disclosure, and the district court enjoined release, invoking Iowa Code section 272C.6(4) as confidential.
- The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded to address remaining issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 272C.6(4) protect the internal audit? | Hall: audit is confidential under 272C.6(4). | Broadlawns: audit falls within the privilege for licensee-disIPline materials. | Audit is not confidential under 272C.6(4). |
| Does 22.7(61) permit withholding the audit pending final action? | Claim seeks to shield until final action; should apply to open records. | Audit could be withheld pending final action under 22.7(61) and related timing. | 22.7(61) does not justify withholding; exceptions require narrow application. |
| Does 21.5( c ) allow non-disclosure as litigation strategy? | Audit relates to ongoing or imminent litigation; nondisclosure protects strategy. | Internal audit does not reveal protected attorney-client strategy. | Not applicable; disclosure would not compromise protected information under 21.5( c ). |
| Does 21.5( i ) permit confidentiality as a professional-competence evaluation? | Audit could evaluate a public employee’s performance; may close proceedings. | Audit does not evaluate Hall’s professional competency for the governmental body. | Not applicable; ninety-day limit applies and disclosure is not barred. |
| Is injunctive relief under 22.8 proper to prevent disclosure? | Disclosure would be clearly not in the public interest and cause irreparable harm. | Public records should be accessible; no clear and convincing evidence of chilling effect. | Injunction not warranted; public interest favors disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Iowa State Bd. of Physical Therapy & Occupational Therapy Examiners, 320 N.W.2d 557 (Iowa 1982) (licensee documents in board proceedings; disclosure considerations)
- Cawthorn v. Catholic Health Initiatives Iowa Corp., 743 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 2007) (peer review materials; limits of privilege)
- Armstrong v. Dwyer, 155 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 1998) (privilege runs with documents, not possessor)
- Todd v. South Jersey Hosp. Sys., 152 F.R.D. 676 (D.N.J. 1993) (preexisting documents vs. discovery; agency reports)
- Burton v. Univ. of Iowa Hosp. & Clinics, 566 N.W.2d 182 (Iowa 1997) (limits on broad public-disclosure exceptions)
- City of L.A. v. Superior Ct., 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 35 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (attorney-client privilege scope in deliberations)