Venosh v. Henzes
40 Pa. D. & C.5th 423
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2014Background
- Blue Cross and First Priority moved to amend an August 8, 2014 discovery order under 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b) and Pa.R.A.P. 1311 and to stay enforcement pending appeal.
- Venosh opposed the application, arguing no substantial ground for difference of opinion and that appeal would not affect case termination.
- The court previously held PRPA protections apply to peer reviews by health-care providers, but not to reviews by a hospital plan corporation like Blue Cross.
- Blue Cross/First Priority sought to appeal the discovery ruling arguing it presents a controlling question of law and may materially advance termination of the case.
- The court found no existing controlling-issue precedent distance, noted lack of scheduling orders, and reasoned discovery would continue with limited exceptions during appeal.
- The court granted the application to amend the order under 702(b)/1311 and stayed enforcement pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order involves a controlling question of law. | Blue Cross/First Priority contend there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. | Venosh argues there is no controlling question or substantial difference of opinion. | Yes; substantial ground for difference of opinion found. |
| Whether an immediate appeal may materially advance termination of the matter. | Appeal will resolve discovery disputes and guide future actions. | Appeal would not affect ultimate termination and is inappropriate. | Yes; immediate appeal may materially advance termination. |
| Whether the order should be amended to include the 702(b) statement and appeal permitted. | Amendment necessary to pursue expedited appellate review. | Amendment is premature or unnecessary absent a valid basis for appeal. | Yes; order amended to include 702(b) statement and permit appeal. |
| Whether a stay of enforcement pending appeal is warranted. | Stay unnecessary due to ongoing discovery. | Stay should be granted to protect privilege and ensure confidentiality. | Yes; enforcement stayed pending appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Com. v. Yingling, 911 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 2006) (72 Pa.C.S. § 702(b) prerequisites; appeal procedure)
- In re Kelly, 704 A.2d 172 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (statutory requirement for 1311 notice)
- Com. v. Tilley, 780 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2001) (substantial-ground-of-opinion standard in appeals)
- McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of PA, 686 A.2d 801 (Pa. 1996) (peer review discoverability; PRPA interpretation)
- McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of PA, 546 Pa. 463, 686 A.2d 801 (Pa. 1996) (affirmed/related progeny on peer review discoverability)