Megrelishvili v. Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center,

Megrelishvili v. Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center,
Nos. 5705, 5705A (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. Feb. 19, 2002)

A patient who suffered complications after breast reduction surgery sued the
surgeon for negligence. During discovery, the surgeon revealed that he had lost
his clinical privileges at two other hospitals because he had no malpractice
insurance, that he had not had malpractice insurance for three years when he
performed the plaintiff’s surgery, and that the hospital where the surgery was
performed did not know that he had no malpractice insurance because he did not
submit an application for reappointment. The plaintiff then sued the hospital
for negligent credentialing.

The hospital’s medical staff services professional testified in a deposition
that she could provide little information because she was not the medical staff
services professional at the time of the plaintiff’s surgery, but that perhaps
the hospital’s vice president and legal counsel could provide such information.
The plaintiff sought a court order compelling the hospital to produce a witness
with knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the surgeon’s appointment
and termination of appointment. The hospital filed a motion to dismiss or, in
the alternative, a protective order prohibiting the deposition of its vice president
and legal counsel. The hospital’s motion was supported by an affidavit from
the hospital vice president and legal counsel stating that she had no personal
knowledge or "operational responsibility" for the Department of the
Medical Staff Coordinator in 1993, when the surgery was performed, or at any
time prior thereto.

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division ordered the hospital to produce
the vice president and legal counsel or other person with relevant records concerning
the facts and circumstances surrounding the surgeon’s appointment. The court
found there were numerous issues as to the adequacy of the hospital’s review
of the surgeon’s credentials, whether it inquired as to his malpractice insurance
status, the outcome of that inquiry, the procedure for denying appointment to
physicians who did not meet the criteria for appointment, and whether those
procedures were followed in this case.