McLaughlin v. v. Garden Spot Village
144 A.3d 950
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Dorothy L. Brace (Decedent), a nursing-home resident, was sexually assaulted by fellow resident Glenn Hershey, a registered sex offender who later pleaded guilty and was imprisoned. Decedent died months later of unrelated causes.
- Plaintiffs (co-administratrices of Decedent’s estate) sued the nursing home operators (Garden Spot Village et al.) and Hershey for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and premises liability, alleging the facility knew Hershey posed a threat.
- Lancaster County Office of Aging (the Office) investigated; parties received redacted agency records and deposed four Office employees under stipulation not to identify abuse reporters or cooperators.
- Plaintiffs sought to depose Garden Spot employee Carrie Kneisley about her communications with the Office. The facility moved for a protective order, asserting confidentiality/privilege under the Older Adults Protective Services Act (the Act).
- Trial court denied the protective order but allowed the deposition to proceed under seal. Facility appealed interlocutorily under Pa.R.A.P. 313; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Older Adults Protective Services Act creates a privilege barring deposition testimony by a facility employee about reporting/cooperating with an agency investigation | Plaintiffs: deposition of Kneisley is permissible; Act does not bar testimony by reporters or cooperators in judicial proceedings | Defendant: Act (esp. §306 and §705) protects confidentiality and prohibits release of identifying data, so Kneisley may not be deposed about what she told the agency | Court: Act does not create a testimonial disqualification; §302(d) contemplates testimony and immunity, and §§306/705 limit agency records and disclosure of identifying data but do not preclude deposition testimony by non-agency employees; protective order denied |
| Whether the policy concerns in the Act (to encourage reporting) justify extending a statutory confidentiality privilege to bar deposition discovery | Plaintiffs: allowing deposition does not defeat reporting policy; testimony can be managed (e.g., under seal) | Defendant: allowing depositions will chill reporting and cooperation, undermining Act’s protective purpose | Court: policy concerns insufficient to expand the Act into a blanket testimonial bar; statutory text controls and contemplates testimony in judicial proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Phoenixville Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 81 A.3d 830 (Pa. 2013) (standard for reviewing statutory interpretation questions)
- In re Thirty-Third Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, 86 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2014) (scope of plenary review for legal questions)
- Mohamed v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 40 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2012) (statutory construction principles: apply plain language when unambiguous)
- V.B.T. v. Family Servs. of W. Pennsylvania, 705 A.2d 1325 (Pa. Super. 1998) (construing child protective statute confidentiality and weighing plaintiffs’ need for discovery)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 584 A.2d 936 (Pa. 1991) (courts may not abrogate legislatively created confidentiality protections)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 690 A.2d 195 (Pa. 1997) (privileges disfavored as they impede search for truth)
- Berkeyheiser v. A-Plus Investigations, Inc., 936 A.2d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2007) (interlocutory appeals available for assertions of evidentiary privileges)