Roberts v. Legacy Meridian Park Hosp. (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION – RACIAL

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Roberts v. Legacy Meridian Park Hosp., No. 3:13-CV-01136-SI (D. Or. Apr. 25, 2014)

The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted a neurosurgeon’s motion to compel discovery of a hospital’s peer review in a racial discrimination case filed in federal court, denying the existence of a “peer review privilege,” but also granted the hospital’s request to protect the disclosure of certain information for non-party physicians.

The plaintiff, an African-American neurosurgeon, alleged that the defendant hospital had precautionarily suspended him because of his race and therefore sued the hospital in federal court alleging racial discrimination.  The neurosurgeon claimed that the surgery that resulted in the suspension had actually resulted in a positive patient outcome and that other non-African-American doctors on the medical staff who had received negative patient outcomes had not experienced any similar peer review consequences.  To support his claims through discovery, the neurosurgeon requested complete records of the peer review analyses and investigations for himself and other selected doctors appointed to the medical staff over the course of the previous 10 years.  However, the hospital argued that the documents were protected by a “peer review privilege.”  Additionally, the hospital stated that the neurosurgeon had agreed to be contractually bound by the state statute that exempts medical peer review records from disclosure.

The court found that a peer review privilege is not recognized in federal common law, and expressly declined to recognize or establish such a privilege.  As such, it was determined that any relevant peer review documentation should be produced for review.  The court also noted that even the state peer review statute which does include a privilege for peer review documents, included an express exception for documents sought by those challenging restriction of clinical privileges.  Due to policy considerations, however, the court ruled in favor of the hospital’s motion for protective order by allowing that the release of discovery documents be staggered.  The court directed the hospital to release the peer review information of the neurosurgeon and other doctors in his field, but was not required to release the information of other non-party, non-neurosurgeons unless a specific showing could be made regarding the discovery’s relevance.