Slattery v. Mishra (Summary)

PEER REVIEW ACT PROTECTION

Slattery v. Mishra, No. 13–cv–1058–JAR–DJW (D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2014)

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part a defendant hospital’s motion to quash (reject) plaintiff’s subpoena requests.

The plaintiff, the administrator of a deceased patient’s estate, filed a negligence suit against the patient’s treating physician.  The plaintiff filed subpoena requests for, among other things, documents containing peer review and risk management materials.  In granting the motion to quash, the court held that these materials were privileged pursuant to Kansas state law.  The plaintiff argued that the underlying facts, on which the privileged opinions and deliberations were based, were outside the scope of statutory protection, and thus the documents were discoverable.

The court ruled that documents containing factual accounts and witness names were not automatically protected simply because they also contained privileged conclusions and recommendations.  Such documents were only discoverable if the facts and information contained therein went to the heart of the plaintiff’s claim and the failure to disclose would deprive the plaintiff of access to relevant information.  The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate centrality of the facts and the court denied his subpoena requests concerning privileged information.  The court also found that the plaintiff’s other subpoenas concerning certain information were to be honored.