Leslie v. Pub. Health Mgmt. Corp.

300 A.3d 469

Antoine H. LESLIE, Administrator of the Estate of Renee D. Gilyard, Deceased v. PUBLIC HEALTH MANAGEMENT CORPORATION d/b/a Wordsworth Academy, Turning Points for Children, Turning Points Cua 3, LLC, The Turning Points for Children Charitable Foundation, Turning Points Cua 9, LLC, Deborah Croston and John and Jane Doe 1-10

Antoine H. Leslie, Administrator of the Estate of Renee D. Gilyard, Deceased v. Public Health Management Corporation d/b/a Wordsworth Academy, Turning Points for Children, Turning Points Cua 3, LLC, The Turning Points for Children Charitable Foundation, Turning Points Cua 9, LLC, Deborah Croston, and John and Jane Doe 1-10

No. 2267 EDA 2021

No. 662 EDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued April 19, 2023

Filed July 28, 2023

Carol A. VanderWoude, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Andrew K. Mitnick, Philadelphia, for appellee.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. ^*

OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:

These consolidated interlocutory appeals ¹ are taken from two discovery orders entered by different judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia presiding over the present wrongful death and survival action brought on behalf of the estate of Renee D. Gilyard, a foster care parent murdered by her then 17-year-old foster child, Xavier Johnson. After careful review, we vacate the orders at issue and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The pertinent facts and procedural history are that on May 21, 2021, Antoine Leslie ("Administrator"), the son of Ms. Gilyard and administrator of her estate brought this action against Defendants/Appellants, ² alleging in the Complaint that the Turning Points Defendants were a foster family care agency under contract with the Philadelphia Department of Human Services. Complaint ¶¶ 14, 24-26. The Complaint alleged that the Turning Points Defendants and Deborah Croston (collectively, "Defendants/Appellants") and the Doe defendants placed 17-year-old foster child, Xavier Johnson, with foster care parent Renee Gilyard and that Johnson murdered Gilyard within days after he was placed in her home. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28, 36, 42. The Complaint alleged further that Defendants/Appellants and the Doe defendants knew at the time of the placement that Johnson had history of violence and, therefore, are liable in negligence for her death because they failed to disclose that history of violence to Gilyard. Id. ¶¶ 37-39, 41, 50-55, 60-63. Appellants/Defendants in their answer denied these allegations. Answer and New Matter ¶¶ 37-39, 41, 50-55, 60-63.

Pursuant to the Administrator's discovery requests, the trial court's discovery orders directed Defendants/Appellants to produce both Johnson's foster care case record and additional information that Defendants/Appellants contend are also part of Johnson's foster care case record. Specifically, Defendants/Appellants argued that they are prohibited by law from disclosing any of the requested records and information and that some of the documents sought are protected medical and mental health records.

The first appeal (under 2267 EDA 2021) concerns the Administrator's service for production of documents on Defendants/Appellants on May 24, 2021, that requested that they produce complete copies of any records that were in their possession prior to and during Johnson's placement with Gilyard "that contain any information concerning Xavier Johnson's medical history, mental health diagnosis, general behaviors, relationships between him and his parents, educational history, life experiences, and previous and/or prospective circumstances." Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Set I), Requests Nos. 1-2. ³

Defendants/Appellants filed objections to these document requests, asserting that the documents sought are protected from discovery by 55 Pa. Code § 3130.44, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 medical privacy regulations (HIPAA), and the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA). Turning Points Defendants’ Response to Request for Production of Documents (Set I), Response to Requests Nos. 1-2.

The Administrator filed a motion to compel production of these documents and Defendants/Appellants, in addition to filing an opposition to the Administrator's motion, filed a motion for a protective order seeking a ruling that the requested documents were protected from discovery unless an authorization to release the records was given by Johnson. Defendants/Appellants asserted, in both their opposition to the Administrator's motion and their motion for a protective order, that those records contain details related to Johnson's juvenile court proceedings, medical history, mental and behavioral health history, and foster care and placement history, that 55 Pa. Code § 3130.44 and the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301 - 6375, prohibit disclosure of such documents, and that HIPAA and the MHPA, 50 P.S. §§ 7101 - 7503 prohibit production of the medical records and mental health and behavioral health records. Defendants/Appellants’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel at 31-38; Defendants’/Appellants’ Motion for Protective Order ¶¶ 6, 19-27.

On September 1, 2021, Johnson moved to quash a subpoena that had been issued seeking production of his criminal lawyer's files asserting, inter alia , that his foster care case record was protected from discovery and that he did not consent to its disclosure. Johnson Motion to Quash Subpoena ¶¶ 5-8. On October 21, 2021, the trial court judge (Judge Sean F. Kennedy) entered both an order denying Defendants/Appellants’ motion for a protective order and an accompanying order granting the Administrator's motion to compel and directing the Turning Points Defendants to produce all documents requested in the Administrator's first set of document requests without any limitation concerning the types of documents and without any confidentiality order as to any of the documents to be produced. Trial Court Order, 10/21/21. Defendants/Appellants appealed the order granting the Administrator's motion to compel on November 3, 2021, at 2267 EDA 2021.

The second appeal (under 662 EDA 2021) concerns the Administrator's second and third sets of interrogatories and document requests served upon Defendants/Appellants on October 25, 2021, just four days after the October 21, 2021, order that is the subject of the 2267 EDA 2021 appeal. The second set interrogatories sought information concerning insurance coverage for the claims in the Administrator's action and the second set document requests sought documents concerning such insurance coverage. Plaintiff's Interrogatories (Set II) at 4-6; Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Set II) at 3. The third set interrogatories sought identification of witnesses and information concerning witness statements and investigations of the claims in the Administrator's action, reports concerning Johnson's behavior prior to his placement with Gilyard, Defendants/Appellants’ factual contentions, and evidence that Defendants/Appellants intended to use at trial. Plaintiff's Interrogatories (Set III) at 3-8. The third set document requests sought only documents identified in their response to the third set interrogatories. Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Set III) at 3. Defendants/Appellants did not file responses to this discovery.

On December 14, 2021, while the 2267 EDA 2021 appeal was pending, the Administrator moved to compel answers in its second and third set interrogatories and production of the documents requested by the second and third set document requests. Defendants/Appellants did not object to providing responses to the second set insurance interrogatories and document requests, Defendants’/Appellants’ Response to Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel at 4 n.4, but they opposed providing any answers or documents in response to the third set interrogatories and document requests.

On January 31, 2022, the trial court (Judge Dennis B. Cohen) entered an order granting the Administrator's motion to compel and ordering Defendants/Appellants to provide full and complete responses to the Administrator's third set interrogatories other than Interrogatories 12 and 14, and to produce the documents requested by the third set document requests. Trial Court Order, 1/31/22. Defendants/Appellants appealed this order on February 25, 2022, at 662 EDA 2022.

"Generally, on review of an order concerning discovery, an appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard." Berkeyheiser v. A- Plus Investigations, Inc. , 936 A.2d 1117, 1125 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). "To the extent that the question involves a pure issue of law, [the Court's] scope ... of review [is] plenary." Id . "Whether an order is appealable under Rule 313 is a question of law." Commonwealth v. Williams , 624 Pa. 405, 86 A.3d 771, 781 (2014). As such, the standard of review as to that issue is plenary. Id .

In their first appeal, Defendants/Appellants ask this Court to determine whether the foster care case record is protected from disclosure in its entirety. They argue that their records of Johnson's medical history, mental health diagnosis, general behaviors, relationships between him and his parents, educational history, life experiences, and previous and/or prospective circumstances are contained in his foster care case record and that Section 3130.44 of Pennsylvania's children and youth social service regulations, 55 Pa. Code § 3130.44, governing the confidentiality of foster care case records, and Section 6307 of the Juvenile Act prohibit disclosure of those records.

Section 3130.44 provides in relevant part:

(a) Information that may be used to identify the child or the parents by name or address, and information contained in the case record, is confidential. A staff person may not disclose or make use of information concerning the child or the parents other than

...