California appeals court reaffirms the confidentiality of the physician peer review process.SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 7, 1995--On Aug. 31, 1995, the San Diego San Diego (săn dēā`gō), city (1990 pop. 1,110,549), seat of San Diego co., S Calif., on San Diego Bay; inc. 1850. San Diego includes the unincorporated communities of La Jolla and Spring Valley. Coronado is across the bay. Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) issued an important opinion that reaffirms the confidentiality of the physician peer review process in criminal proceedings. In Scripps Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court of San Diego ("Scripps"), California Court of Appeal Case No. D022953, the court held that California's Evidence Code section 1157(a) prevents discovery in criminal litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute. When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. of the peer review records of hospital medical staffs, local medical societies, dentists, dental hygienists dental hygienist n. A person trained and licensed to provide preventive dental services, such as cleaning the teeth, usually in conjunction with a dentist. , chiropractors, and veterinarians Veterinarians and veterinary surgeons (vets) are medical professionals who operate exclusively on animals. Well-known and notable veterinarians include:
In so holding, the court sharply criticized the 1991 decision by a Los Angeles Los Angeles (lôs ăn`jələs, lŏs, ăn`jəlēz'), city (1990 pop. 3,485,398), seat of Los Angeles co., S Calif.; inc. 1850. Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Seven) in People v. Superior Court (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3d 363 ("Memorial Hospital"). Weissburg and Aronson Inc. represented the victorious appellant A person who, dissatisfied with the judgment rendered in a lawsuit decided in a lower court or the findings from a proceeding before an Administrative Agency, asks a superior court to review the decision. in this case, Scripps Memorial Hospital, and both the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems and the California Medical Association filed "friend of the court" briefs. Carol Isackson, who argued the matter on Scripps' behalf before the Court of Appeal, applauded the decision, noting that "the health care community has strenuously criticized the Memorial Hospital opinion since it was issued in 1991." Scripps, as well as both associations, believe that the Scripps decision properly interprets the legislative history of section 1157, which they believe clearly reflects that the legislature did not intend for the statute's protections to be limited to civil matters. Isackson characterizes the prior Memorial Hospital decision as "an incorrect reading of the legislative history." The Scripps case arose after a San Diego Deputy District Attorney subpoenaed from Scripps Memorial Hospital all peer review reports concerning a psychiatrist, who had been hired as an expert witness by a criminal defendant. The District Attorney believed that the physician had been criticized by his peers, and she wanted the information to impeach To accuse; to charge a liability upon; to sue. To dispute, disparage, deny, or contradict; as in to impeach a judgment or decree, or impeach a witness; or as used in the rule that a jury cannot impeach its verdict. his testimony at trial. Relying on the 1991 Memorial Hospital case, the trial court ordered Scripps to produce the physician's file. After obtaining an emergency stay, Scripps asked the Court of Appeals to review the trial court's order. Isackson explained that the impact of the Scripps decision is twofold: First, the decision prohibits potential discovery of hospital peer review Hospital peer review is the evaluation of a physician's performance or an investigation into an undesired outcome in a medical procedure conducted within a hospital or medical group. documents in any criminal case, regardless of whether the doctor is a witness or a defendant. Second, the decision may have a significant effect on the ultimate outcome of another peer review case, Arnett v. Dal Cielo Arnett v. Dal Cielo Peer review A lawsuit initiated by the D Arnett, director of the Medical Board of California against Alameda Hospital to obtain records from an anesthesiologist who admitted drug abuse, and after undergoing treatment, was to be monitored by the , 36 Cal. App. 4th 639, decided in July of this year. Relying in part on Memorial Hospital's narrow construction of section 1157, Dal Cielo permitted discovery of peer review documents by the Medical Board of California, even though the board had not yet initiated any formal administrative or civil action. A petition for review of Dal Cielo is now pending before the California Supreme Court. Weissburg and Aronson is a full-service commercial and business law firm and a nationally recognized leader in health care law. The firm has more than 70 attorneys practicing in offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco San Francisco (săn frănsĭs`kō), city (1990 pop. 723,959), coextensive with San Francisco co., W Calif., on the tip of a peninsula between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, which are connected by the strait known as the Golden , San Diego and Sacramento, Calif. CONTACT: Weissburg and Aronson Inc., San Diego Carol Isackson, 619/234-6655, 619/234-3510 (fax) |
|
||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion