Patricia T. Conn, Etc. v. Babylin Rebustillo
138 A.3d 545
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- David W. Conn died after a fall at Newton Medical Center (NMC); NMC prepared a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and submitted it to the New Jersey Department of Health pursuant to the Patient Safety Act (PSA).
- Plaintiff sued for medical malpractice and sought discovery of the RCA; defendants moved for a protective order asserting PSA privilege.
- Trial court found the RCA was prepared for mandatory reporting and was filed with the Department but nonetheless ordered disclosure of the RCA’s "underlying facts," denying defendants’ protective order.
- Defendants appealed the discovery order, arguing the RCA is absolutely privileged under N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.25(f) (documents received by the Department) and/or protected as a self-critical analysis under subsection (g).
- Plaintiff argued defendants’ certification was insufficient to prove statutory compliance and urged application of the Christy common-law balancing standard to compel production of factual portions.
- The Appellate Division considered whether the subsection (f) privilege requires proof of compliance with PSA process regulations and whether the privilege covers the entire RCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold for subsection (f) privilege | Hospital must show full compliance with PSA regulations before RCA is absolutely privileged | Receipt by the Department (filed pursuant to mandatory reporting) is sufficient to trigger absolute privilege | Privilege under subsection (f) is triggered solely by receipt by the Department pursuant to subsections (c) or (e); no separate compliance review required |
| Scope of subsection (f) privilege | Plaintiff sought disclosure of underlying factual portions despite filing | The absolute privilege covers all documents received by the Department; no parsing | Subsection (f) is absolute and covers all documents, materials, information received by the Department; contents need not be parsed |
| Applicability of Christy balancing test | Christy’s common-law disclosure balancing should govern and allow factual disclosure | Christy is inapplicable where PSA statutory privilege governs documents submitted to the Department | Christy’s balancing test is inapplicable to documents received by the Department under the PSA; statutory privilege controls |
| Difference between (f) and (g) privileges | Plaintiff treated privileges similarly and urged scrutiny | (f) attaches on Department receipt; (g) requires proof that documents were developed as part of a compliant patient-safety plan | Court clarified (f) is triggered by receipt; (g) (self-critical analysis) applies only to internal documents developed under PSA process requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- C.A. ex rel. Applegrad v. Bentolila, 219 N.J. 449 (N.J. 2014) (clarifies subsection (g) self-critical analysis privilege and PSA process requirements)
- Christy v. Salem, 366 N.J. Super. 535 (App. Div. 2004) (applies common-law peer-review balancing test to pre-PSA peer review reports)
- Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (N.J. 2011) (discusses standard of review for discovery rulings)