SER HCR Manorcare v. Hon. James C. Stucky, Judge
776 S.E.2d 271
W. Va.2015Background
- Decedent Sharon Hanna died after residency at Heartland of Charleston (a ManorCare facility); her son Tom Hanna sued ManorCare and a facility administrator alleging substandard care and multiple causes of injury/death.
- Hanna served discovery requests seeking (1) nurse consultant reports called "Center Visit Summaries" and (2) corporate "Board of Directors Briefing Packets" relating to the decedent and facility operations.
- ManorCare initially asserted the statutory health-care peer review privilege for the Summaries and the attorney-client privilege for the Briefing Packets; it later produced a privilege log for both sets of documents.
- The circuit court ordered production of the Center Visit Summaries (finding ManorCare failed to prove existence of a qualifying peer review organization) and ordered production of the Briefing Packets subject to redaction of legal advice, without conducting in camera review.
- ManorCare sought a writ of prohibition in the West Virginia Supreme Court: it challenged the orders to produce (a) Summaries as barred by the peer-review statute and (b) Briefing Packets as protected by attorney-client privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hanna) | Defendant's Argument (ManorCare) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Center Visit Summaries are protected by statutory peer-review privilege (W.Va. Code §30-3C) and whether circuit court erred by not holding in camera review | Summaries are not privileged or are available from "original sources"; Hanna moved to compel production | ManorCare argues Summaries were created for and belong to its Quality Assurance/Peer Review organization and thus are privileged; asked for in camera review to establish privilege | Court held ManorCare failed to establish existence of a qualifying peer-review organization below; circuit court did not exceed jurisdiction in ordering production of Summaries (prohibition denied) |
| Whether Board of Directors Briefing Packets are protected by attorney-client privilege and whether the court erred by ordering production without in camera review | Hanna sought Packets to probe corporate control/under-capitalization; argued redaction for legal advice sufficed | ManorCare claimed attorney-client privilege and filed privilege log; requested mandatory in camera review per procedural precedent | Court held the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to conduct the required in camera review under controlling procedure (Kaufman); writ granted (production order as to Briefing Packets vacated/moulded) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Shroades v. Henry, 187 W.Va. 723, 421 S.E.2d 264 (1992) (party asserting peer‑review privilege must prove the existence/scope of a qualifying review organization; court should use bylaws and, if needed, in camera review)
- State ex rel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kaufman, 222 W.Va. 37, 658 S.E.2d 728 (2008) (sets procedural rule: privilege log plus mandatory in camera review by trial court when motions to compel or for protective order are filed)
- State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996) (factors for issuing writ of prohibition when lower court exceeded powers)
- State ex rel. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Canady, 194 W.Va. 431, 460 S.E.2d 677 (1995) (rulings that compel client-prepared documents for opposing counsel are presumptively erroneous absent careful review)
- Young v. Saldanha, 189 W.Va. 330, 431 S.E.2d 669 (1993) (recognizes public policy supporting confidentiality in peer review to improve quality of care)