Reyes et al v. Bob Wilson Memorial Grant County Hospital et al

Filing 56

IN CAMERA REVIEW ORDER. The Court has reviewed in camera the documents submitted pursuant to the 5/24/2011 54 Memorandum and Order. Based upon that review, the Court finds the documents do contain factual information, but relating only to medical care provided in and after October 2009 to persons other than Plaintiff and his mother and not involving childbirth. Accordingly, the Court at this time finds no duty to require the Defendant Hospital to produce them or any parts of them to Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 6/7/2011. (byk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Y.R., a minor, by and through his parents,
natural guardians and next friends,
EDUARDO REYES and CHRISTINE REYES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 10-1312-JTM/GLR

BOB WILSON MEMORIAL GRANT
COUNTY HOSPITAL and NEAL R.
BROCKBANK, D.O.,
Defendants.
IN CAMERA REVIEW ORDER
By Memorandum and Order dated May 24, 2011 (ECF No. 54), the Court sustained
in part and overruled in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Bob Wilson Memorial
Grant County Hospital to Produce Documents. The Court ordered Defendant Hospital to
deliver to the Court for in camera inspection its documents that bear Bates number 2492
through 2495, 2499, 2502, 2504 through 2512, and 2514. Defendant Hospital previously
withheld them as protected from disclosure under the peer review privilege set forth in
K.S.A. 65-4915. Defendant Hospital has complied with the Order by delivering the
identified documents to the Court on June 2, 2011.
As set forth in its Memorandum and Order of May 24, the Court noted that Plaintiff
conceded that some of the withheld documents, or parts of them, are privileged. Plaintiff
argued, however, that under the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Adams v. St. Francis

Regional Medical Center,1 the privilege for evaluations, determinations, and
recommendations of the peer review officer or committee does not extend to the underlying
facts they may have considered. Pursuant to Adams, the Court conducted an in camera
review of the documents to determine what portions, if any, contain discoverable factual
information.
Accordingly, the Court reviews the documents in camera to identify any “relevant
facts” that may be discoverable by virtue of the Adams case.2 The Court has reviewed the
documents in camera. It finds they do contain factual information, but relating only to
medical care provided in and after October 2009 to persons other than Plaintiff and his
mother and not involving childbirth. Accordingly, the Court at this time finds no duty to
require the Defendant Hospital to produce them or any parts of them to Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of June 2011 at Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ Gerald L. Rushfelt
Gerald L. Rushfelt
U.S. Magistrate Judge

1

264 Kan. 144, 173-74, 955 P.2d 1169, 1187-88 (1998).

2

See id. at 174, 955 P.2d at 1188 (“The district court has a duty to conduct an in camera
inspection and craft a protective order which will permit the plaintiffs access to the relevant facts.”
(emphasis added)).

-2-