92 N.Y.2d 13 (1998)
New York law protects the confidentiality of hospital records related to medical quality review and malpractice prevention, shielding them from discovery in medical malpractice lawsuits, except for specific statements made during a review of the incident that is the subject of the lawsuit.
Summary
In a medical malpractice case, plaintiffs sought access to a doctor’s hospital privilege application, arguing the hospital was negligent in granting those privileges. The New York Court of Appeals held that these application materials were protected from discovery under Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m because they were part of the hospital’s quality assurance and malpractice prevention program. The “statements exception” did not apply because the application was not a statement made during a review of the specific incident of alleged malpractice.
Facts
Barbara Logue sued Dr. Barnes and Lake Shore Hospital for malpractice related to a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Logue alleged Dr. Barnes was inadequately trained and the hospital was negligent in granting him privileges. During discovery, Logue requested Dr. Barnes’ initial and renewal applications for surgical privileges and supporting documentation. The hospital refused, citing confidentiality protections under Education Law and Public Health Law.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court granted Logue’s motion to compel disclosure, finding no shield from the Public Health Law or Education Law. The Appellate Division affirmed, citing the “statements exception” in Education Law § 6527(3). Two justices dissented, arguing the applications were part of a formal medical review procedure and not statements about the surgery at issue. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a physician’s initial and renewal applications for hospital privileges are discoverable in a medical malpractice action alleging negligent credentialing, or whether these applications are protected by the confidentiality provisions of Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m.
Holding
No, because Dr. Barnes’ initial and renewal applications for privileges fall squarely within the materials that are made confidential by Education Law § 6527 (3) and article 28 of the Public Health Law, and because the “statements exception” does not apply as the applications were not made in connection with a peer review of any malpractice claim.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that Education Law § 6527(3) shields proceedings and records relating to medical or quality assurance review functions to encourage candid peer review. Public Health Law § 2805-m mirrors this policy, protecting information gathered under sections 2805-j and 2805-k, which mandate hospital malpractice prevention programs including periodic reviews of physician credentials. The court emphasized, “The purpose of the discovery exclusion is to ‘enhance the objectivity of the review process’ and to assure that medical review committees ‘may frankly and objectively analyze the quality of health services rendered’ by hospitals”.
The court found Dr. Barnes’ applications were part of the hospital’s credentialing process, reviewed by a committee assessing competence and preventing malpractice. Thus, they were “records relating to [the Hospital’s] performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function”.
Regarding the “statements exception,” the court stated, “As written, the exception is narrow and limited to statements given at an otherwise privileged peer review meeting by a party to a lawsuit which involves the same underlying conduct that is the topic of discussion at the meeting.” The court refused to broaden the exception, stating to do so would allow any plaintiff to circumvent confidentiality by claiming negligent credentialing, thus swallowing the general rule of confidentiality for quality review materials.
The court emphasized that the applications were submitted before the alleged malpractice and not during a peer review of any malpractice claim. The court warned against allowing the exception to “swallow the general rule that materials used by a hospital in quality review and malpractice prevention programs are strictly confidential.”