Loyd v. St. Joseph Mercy Oakland/Trinity Health (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Loyd v. St. Joseph Mercy Oakland/Trinity Health, No. 12-cv-12567 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied a former hospital security guard’s motion to compel discovery of an incident report involving her that had been documented as part of the hospital’s peer review reporting system.  The former security guard, a 52-year-old, African-American female, had been involved in an incident involving an emergency room patient in which she told the patient that she could leave the hospital premises. That advice was inaccurate and allegedly escalated the situation, causing the patient to become agitated, placing the staff at increased risk and resulting in the patient needing to be restrained.  A nurse involved in the matter completed an incident report, later testifying that she did so in order to improve patient safety and the hospital’s delivery of care.  The security guard had already been issued a final written warning, and the incident resulted in the termination of her employment.  The security guard sued the hospital for discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with a contractual relationship. In connection with her termination and lawsuit, portions of the incident report were sent to the hospital’s human resources department, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.  

In support for her motion to compel discovery, the security guard argued that the incident report was not entitled to peer review privilege because, as a security guard, she was not the type of healthcare professional who was subject to hospital peer review procedures.  Noting that the peer review privilege extends to all hospital incident reports that are compiled in order to improve health care, the court concluded that the report at issue in this case was entitled to peer review privilege because it was collected for the purpose of improving patient care.

The court also disagreed with the security guard’s argument that the hospital had waived its right to assert peer review privilege when portions of the report had been circulated to human resources and other state agencies, finding that Michigan courts had not yet ruled on the issue of whether the peer review privilege may be waived.  The court also noted that, unlike other statutorily created privileges that include a waiver provision, the Michigan peer review statute lacks such a waiver provision.  Accordingly, the court concluded that peer review privilege may not be waived.