Csiszer et al v. Wren et al

Filing 47

ORDER re: 23 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The court has reviewed the documents in camera and finds that the document are protected by the peer review provisions of Ark. Code. Ann. Section 16-46-105 and that the Plaintiff's Motion to Com pel Request for Production numbers 3,4 and 45 is hereby DENIED with regards to the documents provided to the court for in camera review. The documents are furthered order to be sealed by the clerk and subject to review only by the court. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on December 10, 2008. (lw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION ROZANNA CSISZER and CHARLES individually and as next friend of A.C., a Minor, V. No. 3:08-cv-3011 PLAINTIFF MARY R. WREN, M.D. WREN & BARROW OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, PLLC d/b/a THE CENTER FOR WOMEN, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, PERRY L. WILBUR, M.D. and PERRY L. WILBUR, M.D., P.A. ORDER DEFENDANT Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 23) in regards to Request for Production Number 3, 4 and 45. The Court Granted the Plaintiff's original request (Doc. 45) subject to the Defendant satisfying to the court that the request were protected by the quality assurance/peer review privilege as set forth in Ark. Code. Ann. Section 16-46-105. Background: The Defendant, Baxter Regional Medical Center, has provided a privilege log and the documents referenced in the privilege log for in camera review by the court. The Defendant has also provided the affidavit of Karen Adams stating that the forms are utilized to conduct evaluations for peer review. Discussion: With respect to the peer review exception for material used in evaluating the quality of medical or hospital care the Ark. Code. Ann. Section 16-46-105 provides as follows: (a)(1)(A) The proceedings, minutes, records, or reports of organized committees of hospital medical staffs or medical review committees of local medical societies having the responsibility for reviewing and evaluating the quality of medical or hospital care, and any records, other than those records described in subsection (c) of this section, compiled or accumulated by the administrative staff of such hospitals in connection with such review or evaluation, together with all communications or reports originating in such committees, shall not be subject to discovery pursuant to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure or the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, 25-19-101 et seq., or admissible in any legal proceeding and shall be absolutely privileged communications. (c) Nothing in this section or 20-9-308 shall be construed to apply to original hospital medical records, incident reports, or other records with respect to the care or treatment of any patient or to affect the discoverability or admissibility of such records. Ark. Code. Ann. Section 16-46-105. Each of the documents provided is a general assessment of the work performed by nurse Padgett or nurse Moore/Dodillet over several years. Each form provides for a scale rating from 1-5 concerning several general work areas. None provide for any specific handling of any specific patient or job assignment. Conclusion: The court has reviewed the documents in camera and finds that the documents are protected by the peer review provisions of Ark. Code. Ann. Section 16-46-105 and that the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Request for Production numbers 3, 4 and 45 is hereby DENIED with regards to the documents provided to the court for in camera review. The documents are furthered order to be sealed by the clerk and subject to review only by the court. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of December 2008. /s/ J. Marschewski HONORABLE JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?