Blum v. Morristown Med. Ctr. — Oct. 2015 (Summary)

MALPRACTICE/PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS

Blum v. Morristown Med. Ctr.
Docket No. A-3017-14T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 30, 2015)

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed in part and remanded in part the trial court’s rulings that four documents in a medical malpractice case were not confidential. A patient who suffered numerous complications after undergoing gastric bypass surgery sued the physician who performed the surgery and the hospital where the surgery was performed. The patient claimed that the hospital failed to ensure that the surgeon had necessary liability insurance, and that it “failed to exercise reasonable care in the appointment, re-appointment, and…granting of clinical privileges to [its] medical staff.”

At issue in this appeal was whether the trial court erroneously classified the four specific documents as non-confidential and improperly ordered the hospital to turn over the documents to the patient. The first document was a letter from the State Board of Medical Examiners (“BOME”) concerning the surgeon after he was discharged by the medical center. The confidentiality of this document under state law depended on whether the BOME rendered a final disposition, which was not clear from the appellate record. Accordingly, the court remanded the discoverability of the document to the trial court for further consideration. The second and third documents were a fax cover sheet and a transmittal letter from the hospital where the physician previously practiced to the defendant hospital. The court determined that the portions of the documents merely repeating information already contained the hospital’s privilege log were discoverable. However, it remanded to the trial court the issue of whether the remaining portions of those documents were confidential, because the trial court had failed to provide an analysis, under the applicable common law. The fourth document was a string of internal e-mails pertaining to the credentialing process. These were also remanded for further consideration under common-law analysis.