Stull v. Summa Health Sys.

185 N.E.3d 141

Kalvyn STULL, an Incompetent Person, by and Through His Guardian of the Estate, Brian Zimmerman, et al., Appellees

v.SUMMA HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Appellants

No. 29969

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit County.

February 16, 2022

STEPHEN W. FUNK and MEGAN M. MILLICH, Attorneys at Law, Akron, for Appellants.

LAMAR F. JOST and BRIAN S. OSTERMAN, Attorneys at Law, for Appellants.

LEE E. PLAKAS, Canton, MEGAN J. FRANTZ OLDHAM, COLLIN S. WISE, and LAUREN A. GRIBBLE, Canton, Attorneys at Law, for Appellees.

BRIAN ZIMMERMAN, Attorney at Law, Canton, for Appellees.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

HENSAL, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Summa Health System, Summa Health System Corp., Summa Health System Community, Summa Health, Summa Physicians, Inc., dba Summa Health Medical Group, Jeffrey R. Welko, M.D., Nathan R. Blecker, M.D., Mazen E. Elashi, M.D., and Lynda J. Shambaugh, RN (collectively "Summa") appeal an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that granted Kalvyn Stull's motion to compel in part. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Mr. Stull received treatment from Summa after being injured in an automobile crash. According to Mr. Stull, the treatment made the injuries he suffered to his brain more severe. He, therefore, sued Summa for medical negligence. As part of Mr. Stull's discovery requests, he sought the resident file of Dr. Elashi, who was a resident physician at Summa. Summa refused to provide the file because it alleged the file was protected by the peer review privilege under Revised Code Section 2305.252. After Mr. Stull moved to compel the production of the resident file and other materials, the trial court granted the motion as to the resident file because it concluded that Summa did not meet its burden of establishing that the file is protected by the privilege. Summa has appealed, assigning as error that the court incorrectly compelled the production of Dr. Elashi's entire residency file.

II.

{¶3} As a preliminary matter, Mr. Stull has moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the trial court's order is not a final, appealable order. Section 2305.252(A), however, provides that "[a]n order by a court to produce for discovery * * * the proceedings or records described in this section is a final order." Although the trial court determined that the resident file was not a record protected by Section 2305.252, the question is whether the information at issue is alleged to be protected by the statute. Cousino v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr. , 6th Dist., 2018-Ohio-1550, 111 N.E.3d 529, ¶ 12. In Giusti v. Akron General Medical Center , 178 Ohio App.3d 53, 2008-Ohio-4333, 896 N.E.2d 769 (9th Dist.), this Court explained that an order is final and appealable under Section 2305.252 if a party has made a claim of privilege under the section. Id. at ¶ 7. Under Mr. Stull's interpretation, appeals would be limited to situations in which a trial court determined that an item is a proceeding or record of a peer review committee of a health care entity under Section 2305.252 but ordered the information to be produced, nevertheless. Mr. Stull's motion to dismiss is denied.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY COMPELLING THE PRODUCTION OF THE ENTIRE RESIDENCY FILE FOR MAZEN ELASHI, M.D. BECAUSE IT IS A PEER REVIEW RECORD THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND EXEMPT FROM DISCOVERY UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2305.252.

{¶4} Summa argues that the trial court incorrectly compelled it to produce Dr. Elashi's resident file because the file is privileged under Section 2305.252 and, therefore, exempt from discovery. Section 2305.252(A) provides in relevant part that "records within the scope of a peer review committee of a health care entity shall be held in confidence and shall not be subject to discovery * * * in any civil action against a health care entity * * * arising out of matters that are the subject of evaluation and review by the peer review committee." This Court reviews the trial court's interpretation and application of Section 2305.252 de novo. Giusti at ¶ 12.

{¶5} "Privileges, being in derogation of common law, are to be strictly construed." Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Svoboda v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc. , 156 Ohio App.3d 307, 2004-Ohio-894, 805 N.E.2d 559, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.). "The party claiming the privilege has the burden of proving that the privilege applies to the requested information." Id. To establish that a privilege exists under Section 2305.252(A), "[f]irst, the health care entity must establish the existence of a ‘peer review committee’ as defined by R.C. 2305.25(E)." Cousino , 2018-Ohio-1550, 111 N.E.3d 529 at ¶ 16, quoting Bansal v. Mt. Carmel Health Sys., Inc. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-351, 2009-Ohio-6845, 2009 WL 5062122, ¶ 15. A " ‘[p]eer review committee’ means a utilization review committee, quality assessment committee, performance improvement committee, tissue committee, credentialing committee, or other committee that * * * either" "[c]onducts professional credentialing or quality review activities involving the competence of, professional conduct of, or quality of care provided by health care providers, including both individuals who provide health care and entities that provide health care" or "[c]onducts any other attendant hearing process initiated as a result of a peer review committee's recommendations or actions." R.C. 2305.25(E)(1).

{¶6} "Second, the health care entity must prove that each of the documents that it refuses to produce is a ‘record within the scope of [that] peer review committee’ as required by R.C. 2305.252."

Cousino at ¶ 16, quoting Bansal at ¶ 15. "This burden may be satisfied by ‘(1) submitting the documents in question to the trial court for an in camera inspection, or (2) presenting affidavit or deposition testimony containing the information necessary for the trial court to adjudge whether the privilege attaches.’ " Meade v. Mercy Health-Regional Med. Ctr., LLC , 9th Dist., 2019-Ohio-438, 130 N.E.3d 1058, ¶ 11, quoting Bansal at ¶ 14. "The health care entity must provide evidence as to the specific documents requested, not generalities regarding the types of documents usually contained in a peer review committee's records." Bansal at ¶ 15.

{¶7} Summa argues that it presented undisputed affidavits that show that Dr. Elashi's residency file is a record kept and maintained by a peer review committee exclusively for the purpose of evaluating the competence, professional conduct, and quality of care provided by Dr. Elashi. Regarding whether a peer review committee existed, Summa points to the affidavit of Dr. Erica Laippley, who averred that Summa has established a Graduate Medical Education Committee ("GMEC") that is responsible for overseeing the quality assessment of resident physicians and reviewing all medical care provided by resident physicians at Summa facilities. She averred that Summa has also established a Clinical Competency Committee ("CCC") for each residency program that is under the umbrella of the GMEC. The responsibility of each CCC is to periodically gather and analyze all data about the performance of individual residents and to make recommendations to the GMEC about the competency and quality of care of the resident.

{¶8} Regarding whether Dr. Elashi's resident file was a record within the scope of the peer review committee, Summa argues that the residency files maintained by the GMEC constitute such a record. It argues that any record created by or exclusively for a peer review committee is privileged. It also argues that any records generated by another source but kept by the peer review committee may only be obtained from the other source and not through the committee. Summa points to the affidavit of Dr. Laippley as establishing that Dr. Elashi's residency file is a record of a peer review committee that was created and used by the GMEC and the CCCs.

{¶9} The trial court determined that Summa failed to meet its burden of establishing that Dr. Elashi's resident file is privileged. It noted that Dr. Laippley's affidavit contained mostly generalities about the type of information contained in residency files. It noted that she did not identify any specific individuals who authored any of the documents in the file or identify any specific individuals as being part of a peer review committee. The court also determined that the only specific information about what was in the residency file was information that would not be protected by the peer review privilege because it was produced by physicians who were not identified as having any involvement with a peer review committee.

{¶10} Summa argues that the trial court's conclusions incorrectly interpret and apply Section 2305.252. It argues that it did not have to identify every document in the file to prove that the entire file is a record...