Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co., No 12-3062 (DSD/JJK) (D. Minn. July 21, 2014)

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that a magistrate judge did not err in limiting the peer review privilege in a hospitalist’s case against his former employer.

The hospitalist alleged that he observed instances of negligence, improper patient admissions, and improper coding practices at the clinic. After reporting these concerns, the hospitalist was placed on administrative leave and eventually terminated. He brought a suit against the clinic, alleging breach of contract and retaliation under state and federal whistleblower statutes. The magistrate judge denied the hospitalist’s request for documents relating to relevant mortality conferences because such documents were protected by peer review privilege. The hospitalist then appealed this denial.

The court held that although the hospitalist alleged claims under both state and federal law, the magistrate judge’s application of the state statute of peer review privilege was appropriate in this instance. Additionally, the court noted that the magistrate judge did not issue a blanket application of the privilege, but instead ordered that evaluation of privilege be made on a specific document-by-document basis.