 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dorris v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp.6/9/1999
ssigned a professional review function in a health facility or agency are confidential, shall be used only for the purposes provided in this article, are not public records, and are not subject to court subpoena.
Further evidence of the Legislature's intent to fully protect quality assurance/peer review records from discovery is found at MCL 333.21515; MSA 14.15(21515), which provides:
The records, data, and knowledge collected for or by individuals or committees assigned a review function described in this article are confidential and shall be used only for the purposes provided in this article, shall not be public records, and shall not be available for court subpoena.
In Gallagher v Detroit-Macomb Hosp Ass'n, 171 Mich App 761; 431 NW2d 90 (1988), the Court of Appeals considered whether an incident report prepared regarding Gallagher's slip and fall while a patient at South Macomb Hospital could be introduced at trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling refusing to permit Gallagher to introduce the incident report. The Gallagher Court noted that the Public Health Code requires hospitals to engage in reviews of their practices and procedures in an effort to improve the quality of patient care. "To achieve this end, the Legislature has exempted from court subpoena information and records compiled in furtherance of improving health care and reducing morbidity and mortality." 171 Mich App 768.
Hospitals are required to establish peer review committees whose purposes are to reduce morbidity and mortality and to ensure quality care. MCL 333.21513; MSA 14.15(21513). In Attorney General v Bruce, 422 Mich 157, 169; 369 NW2d 826 (1985), this Court stated:
The rationale for protecting the confidentiality of the records, data, and knowledge of such [peer review] committees was set forth in an oft-quoted opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:
"Confidentiality is essential to effective functioning of these staff meetings; and these meetings are essential to the continued improvement in the care and treatment of patients. Candid and conscientious evaluation of clinical practices is a sine qua non of adequate hospital care. To subject the discussions and deliberations to the discovery process, without a showing of exceptional necessity, would result in terminating such deliberations. [Emphasis in original. Bredice v Doctors Hosp, Inc, 50 FRD 249, 250 (D DC, 1970), aff'd without opinion 156 US App DC 199; 479 F2d 920 (1973).]"
Additionally, in Monty v Warren Hosp Corp, 422 Mich 138, 147; 366 NW2d 198 (1985), this Court found that in determining whether the information is privileged, "the court may wish to consider the hospital's bylaws and internal regulations, and whether the committee's function is one of current patient care or retrospective review."
In the present case, defendant Heritage provided the affidavit of Therese Oziemski, Manager of Quality and Utilization Management at Heritage Hospital. According to Ms. Oziemski's affidavit, the incident report and other investigative documents sought by plaintiff Gregory are used for the purpose of maintaining health care standards at the hospital, improving the quality of care provided to patients, and reducing morbidity and mortality within the hospital.
Hospital personnel are expected to give their honest assessment and reviews of the performance of other hospital staff in incidents such as the one in the present case. Absent the assurance of confidentiality as provided by ยงยง 21515 and 20175(8), the willingness of hospital staff to provide their candid assessment will be greatly diminished. This will have
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|