The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in a non-precedential decision filed on December 15, 2023, held: “based on our interpretation of section 311(a) and the record in this appeal, we hold that a party claiming a document is protected under section 311(a) need not demonstrate a patient safety committee or governing board actually reviewed the contested document. At a minimum, however, section 311(a) requires proof that the document, materials or information or reporting requirement arose out of “matters reviewed” by a patient safety committee or a governing board pursuant to their section 311(b) responsibilities. Here, in the absence of any evidence that the patient safety committee or governing board incorporated the three patient safety reports when discharging their statutory responsibilities under section 310(b), we conclude Appellants failed to meet their threshold burden of establishing the evidentiary protection in section 311(a) applied.”
Underlying Facts
Hannah Lahr was provided prenatal care with regard to the birth of Medina-Diaz. In August 2019, around the time of Lahr’s expected due date, she experienced symptoms, including cramping, bloody vaginal discharge, and fever, which she reported to on-call providers at Lehigh Valley Physicians Group (“Group”). The on-call providers advised Lahr to take Tylenol and visit Group’s office. On August 13, 2019, Lahr instead went to LVH-Muhlenberg, where she was admitted for the induction of labor. Dr. Young and Dr. Peters, who were affiliated with Group and LVH, were Lahr’s attending obstetricians-gynecologists (“OB-GYNs”). Lahr gave birth to Medina-Diaz in the early morning hours of August 14, 2019. Medina-Diaz was in critical condition and transferred to LVH-Cedar Crest. Later that evening, Medina-Diaz died of complications related to infections. Lahr, individually and as executrix of Medina-Diaz’s estate, commenced the underlying civil action asserting medical malpractice and related claims against Defendants/Appellants.
On December 16, 2021, Lahr moved to compel Appellants to produce “patient safety reports” regarding Lahr and/or Medina-Diaz. Appellants asserted that the patient safety reports are immune from discovery under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (“MCARE”) Act, 40 P.S. §§ 1303.101-1303.910, and/or the Peer Review Protection
Act (“PRPA”), 63 P.S. §§ 425.1-425.4. In June 2022, the trial court granted Lahr’s motion to compel production of the patient safety reports, finding that the MCARE and PRPA confidentiality provisions did not apply because the reports contained information otherwise available from an original source, such as a medical record. The trial court later changed its reasoning, stating that section 311(a) did not apply because a patient safety committee did not review the patient safety reports, and issued a new order and a memorandum opinion requiring disclosure of the patient safety reports. The Defendants then appealed.
Source Lahr v. Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., J-A17019-23.
If you or a loved one suffered harm due to medical negligence in Pennsylvania or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Pennsylvania medical malpractice attorney or a medical malpractice attorney in your state who may investigate your medical negligence claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.