Bridenstine v. St. Francis Hosp. and Med. Ctr. (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Bridenstine v. St. Francis Hosp. and Med. Ctr., Nos. 33778, 33807 (Conn. App. Ct. May 28, 2013)

The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the lower court’s grant of a medical malpractice plaintiff’s motion to set aside a verdict and for a new trial because the defendant physician’s counsel posed a series of questions during trial that violated the state’s peer review privilege.  The estate of a deceased patient brought the lawsuit against, among others, the physician.  The physician provided post-operative care to the patient following a gastric bypass.

During trial, the physician’s attorney engaged in a line of questioning directed toward the physician that would have put before the jury the fact that the hospital peer review committee reviewed the care provided by the physician and concluded that no sanctions were warranted.  The plaintiff objected, arguing that the line of questioning violated the state’s peer review privilege.  The physician contended that the privilege was hers to assert and that she intended to waive it.  A jury verdict was entered in favor of the physician.  However, the lower court granted the estate’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.  In doing so, the court rejected the physician’s contention that her only intention during trial was to ask whether her privileges were restricted or terminated, as permitted under the state’s peer review privilege.  According to the court, the physician intended to delve into the prohibited subject of peer review as evidenced by her position during trial that the privilege was hers to assert and that she intended to waive it.