Smith v. Cleveland Clinic
968 N.E.2d 41
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Medical-malpractice and wrongful-death suit arising from care of Howard Lester Smith; Leonard Smith, administrator, sues Community Health Partners et al.
- Mr. Smith died after a cardiac arrest following knee-replacement surgery; potassium level elevation allegedly caused by malfunctioning lab equipment.
- Prior to death, the Smiths met the defendants’ chief medical officer on March 1, 2010, at which a hidden tape-recording captured candid remarks.
- Defendants moved for a protective order seeking to preclude deposing Dr. El-Dalati and excluding the March 1 meeting tape, claiming privilege under R.C. 2305.252.
- Trial court denied the motion, finding lack of clear peer-review status for the root-cause analysis and a possible waiver of privilege by disclosure to non-professionals.
- Appellants appeal, arguing the root-cause analysis was a peer-review committee and that privilege applied; the court affirms, holding no peer-review privilege applies and that the disclosures were not protected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the root-cause analysis constitutes a peer-review committee | Smith contends that the root-cause analysis is a peer-review activity | Community Health Partners argues it is a protected peer-review committee | Not proven; no independent evidence the committee existed or performed peer-review; privilege not shown |
| Whether disclosures to the Smith family waived the privilege | Smith asserts no waiver occurred; information remained confidential | Defendants argue disclosure to non-professionals waives privilege | Waiver not established; but court ultimately finds privilege not applicable, so moot |
| Whether the March 1, 2010 disclosures are barred by the peer-review privilege and the tape should be excluded | Smith seeks deposition and admission of the tape as non-privileged | Defendants argue tape and disclosures are privileged as peer-review material | Disclosures not protected by privilege; privilege not shown to apply; protective-order denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Giusti v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 178 Ohio App.3d 53 (2008-Ohio-4333) (peer-review privilege purpose to protect quality improvement; not a cloak of secrecy)
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 2010-Ohio-6275 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (de novo review for privilege questions in discovery)
- Rinaldi v. City View Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 2005-Ohio-6360 (Ohio App.) (labels alone cannot establish peer-review; burden to prove actual review exists)
- Selby v. Fort Hamilton Hosp., 2007-Ohio-2413 (Ohio App.) (evidence of peer-review must be independent; blanket statements insufficient)
- Smith v. Manor Care of Canton, Inc., 2006-Ohio-1182 (Ohio App.) (peer-review privilege limits on disclosures and testimony)