Klaine v. S. Ill. Hosp. Servs. — Jan. 2016 (Summary)

NEGLIGENT CREDENTIALING

Klaine v. S. Ill. Hosp. Servs.
No. 118217 (Ill. Jan. 22, 2016)

The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed a decision of the appellate court holding a physician’s three applications for staff privileges at a hospital were not privileged under section 15(h) of the Illinois Health Care Professionals Credentials Data Collection Act and were therefore discoverable by individuals suing the hospital for the negligent credentialing of the physician. The supreme court agreed with the appellate court that although section 15(h) stated that credentials data collected by hospitals was “confidential,” confidentiality, admissibility and discoverability are distinct concepts. The supreme court further explained that when enacting the Credentials Act, the legislature did not explicitly create a privilege for these credentialing materials; it only provided a uniform process through which physicians could apply for staff privileges at hospitals. Additionally, because the three applications for staff privileges were the only materials considered by the credentialing committee in determining whether to grant the physician privileges, the supreme court found these materials relevant to the negligent credentialing cause of action, and opined that it was unlikely the plaintiffs could resolve their claim without access to these documents.

The supreme court also rejected the hospital’s argument that any references to reports to the National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”) should be redacted. The court stated that hospitals were not only permitted to request disclosures from the NPDB, they were required to do so when a physician applies for clinical privileges or a position on the medical staff. Additionally, the supreme court noted the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) permitted attorneys to request information from the NPDB with regard to a physician who is also named as a defendant in a medical malpractice suit against a hospital. Reading the HCQIA and its underlying regulations together, the supreme court held that while reports to the NPDB may be confidential, they were not privileged and therefore did not need to be redacted.

Finally, the supreme court rejected the hospital’s claim that information concerning medical care delivered by the physician to patients who were not a party to the present lawsuit should be redacted pursuant to the physician-patient privilege of Illinois. The supreme court began its analysis by noting that the physician-patient privilege argument was not made at either the appellate or trial court level, and was forfeited as a result. Nevertheless, the supreme court held that, even if the argument was not forfeited, the information would not need to be redacted because personally identifiable information had already been redacted by order of the appellate court. The only information that remained was a list of the surgical procedures and patient care delivered by the physician.