Bentley v. Highlands Hosp. Corp. — Feb. 2016 (Summary)

Discovery Dispute (Focuses on Burden of Production)

Bentley v. Highlands Hosp. Corp.
Civil Action No. 7:15-cv-97-ART-EBA (E.D. Ky. Feb. 23, 2016)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied in part and granted in part discovery requests made by a patient to a medical center with regard to a physician who allegedly misread her MRI, delaying appropriate care and worsening her condition. The patient filed suit against the physician, the medical center, nurses associated with her care, insurers, and other corporations associated with the medical center, alleging, among other things, medical malpractice, vicarious negligence, negligent hiring, and violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection statute.

The district court found a number of discovery requests to be too burdensome, overly broad, and not sufficiently relevant to the allegedly negligent reading of the MRI conducted by the physician. These requests included the following: a copy of the “medical staff bylaws, rules, regulations, guidelines, membership requirements or other written documents governing your medical staff,” a request for the medical center’s corporate governance structure and “any organizational chart(s), annual reports, board of director reports, lists of committee and department names,” information concerning any and all contractual agreements among the various defendants in the case, information concerning the accreditation of the medical center, a request for “board minutes, meeting minutes, committee notes or other documentation” regarding any named party, a request for any documentation regarding investigations by an accrediting body, state or federal entity, or other association for the past five years, and a request for all documented protocols and procedures of various departments in the medical center over a three-year period.

The district court also denied the patient’s requests for any complaints or other documents related to investigations or inquiries about the physician’s care with any healthcare-related entity, noting that all the relevant information had been disclosed in another interrogatory request regarding other litigation. Requests for a log of documents that were to be kept in employment files and a log of the physician’s daily activities were denied because the medical center kept no such records. The patient’s request for a list of all advertisements issued by the medical center in the past three years were denied because medical services were not an activity covered by the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. A request for documentation of policies and procedures for electronic health records was also denied because plaintiff never made an allegation that her electronic health records were improperly accessed. Lastly, the district court denied the patient’s request for the medical center to disclose any reports from the National Practitioner Data Bank regarding the physician, holding that federal law expressly prohibited such a disclosure.

The district court did grant discovery requests for the employment agreement between the medical center and the physician, personnel files of any employee who treated the patient, and the credentialing file of the physician.