2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

Act protects the confidentiality of information gathered and presented by “review organizations,”defined as:any committee engaging in peer review . . . to gather and reviewinformation relating to the care and treatment of patients for thepurposes of: (i) evaluating and improving the quality of health carerendered; (ii) reducing morbidity or mortality; or (iii) establishingand enforcing guidelines designed to keep within reasonablebounds the cost of health care.Id. at 849 (quoting 63 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 425.2). Section 425.2 defines “peer review,”furthermore, as “the procedure for evaluation by professional health care providers of the qualityand efficiency of services ordered or performed by other health care providers . . .” 63 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 425.2 (emphasis added).Despite the PRPA’s provision that peer review must be conducted by “health careprofessionals,” however, the Superior Court gave more weight to the purpose of the statute thanto the plain language. As explained by the Superior Court, “the PRPA was promulgated to servethe legitimate purpose of maintaining high professional standards in the medical practice for theprotection of patients and the general public.” Piroli, 909 A.2d at 850 (quoting Troescher v.Grody, 869 A.2d 1014, 1020-1021 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005)). The court explained, furthermore, thatthe “‘overriding intent of the Legislature’ is to ‘protect peer review records.’” Id. at 849 (quotingTroescher v. Grody, 869 A.2d at 1022). The court concluded, in turn, that subjecting informationgathered and presented during a peer review session to discovery simply because non-healthcareprofessionals were present would defeat the purpose of the PRPA and hinder the advancement ofthe health care profession in general. The Superior Court thus concluded that the informationsought by Plaintiffs was protected by the PRPA despite the fact that a billing agent was presentat the peer review session. Id. at 853.In Dodson v. Deleo, 872 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005), Defendants sought review ofan order of the trial court which held that certain documents sought by Plaintiff in the medicalmalpractice litigation against the hospital were discoverable and not protected by the PeerReview Protection Act.Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s performance of a vertical banded gastroplasty andsubsequent post-operative care fell below the standard of care for a reasonable physician.Plaintiff sought credentialing reports specific to Dr. DeLeo, a physician Plaintiff accused ofmalpractice. Defendants maintained that these documents were protected by the Peer ReviewProtection Act. After an in camera review of the disputed documents, the trial court concludedthat these documents were not privileged and ordered disclosure.On appeal, Defendants maintained that the trial court erred in concluding that documents,which memorialized hospital peer review activity with respect to a given physician for a givenyear, which were generated by a hospital department charged with gathering and generating peerreview committee documents, and were used exclusively for purposes of physician credentialing,were not protected by the Peer Review Protection Act. The Superior Court found that an77