This case arose out of a medical malpractice lawsuit by the Plaintiffs seeking compensation for birth injuries sustained by their child.
During the course of discovery, the Defendants produced a privilege log regarding certain documents. The Plaintiff followed a discovery motion in response. The trial court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion.
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. As part of the ruling, the Superior Court noted that the Defendants had a patient safety plan, which established a patient safety committee under MCARE.
The court found other documents that were not privileged given that those documents did not arise from a matter reviewed by the patient safety committee.
However, noted above, the court did find that certain other documents fell within the scope of the statutory privilege provided under the Patient Safety and Healthcare Quality Improvement Act.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The concurring and dissenting Opinion issued by Judge Lane can be viewed HERE.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 6, 2025).
During the course of discovery, the Defendants produced a privilege log regarding certain documents. The Plaintiff followed a discovery motion in response. The trial court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion.
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. As part of the ruling, the Superior Court noted that the Defendants had a patient safety plan, which established a patient safety committee under MCARE.
The court found other documents that were not privileged given that those documents did not arise from a matter reviewed by the patient safety committee.
However, noted above, the court did find that certain other documents fell within the scope of the statutory privilege provided under the Patient Safety and Healthcare Quality Improvement Act.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The concurring and dissenting Opinion issued by Judge Lane can be viewed HERE.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 6, 2025).