Willits v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County11/16/1993
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
No. H011221
1993.CA.41087 ; 20 Cal. App. 4th 90; 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 348
Decided: November 16, 1993.
KATHRYN ANN WILLITS, PETITIONER,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, RESPONDENT; HEALTH DIMENSIONS, INC., REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 724681, Read Ambler, Judge.
Engle & Gertler and Jonathan E. Gertler for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Ropers, Majeski, Kohn, Bentley, Wagner & Kane, Mark G. Bonino, Laura L. Reidenbach and Todd A. Roberts for Real Party in Interest.
Opinion by Premo, J., with Cottle, P. J., and Wunderlich, J., Concurring.
Premo
This petition for a writ of mandate raises an issue of first impression regarding application of the discovery privilege under Evidence Code section 1157, subdivision (a), which protects "proceedings" and "records" of a hospital staff committee "having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care rendered in the hospital . . .." We hold that the statute applies to a hospital employee's suit for damages.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner Kathryn Ann Willits was employed as a critical care nurse at San Jose Medical Center (hereafter, SJMC) from November 1990 until October 1991. On March 15, 1991, petitioner withdrew blood from an AIDS patient. While transferring the blood from a syringe into a blood collection tube, petitioner allegedly incurred a needle stick injury. Thereafter, petitioner tested HIV positive.
Petitioner filed suit in March 1992, asserting causes of action for negligence, products liability, and breach of express and implied warranties. Petitioner named as defendant, among others, Health Dimensions, Inc. (hereafter, HDI), a separate entity that managed SJMC at the time of the alleged needle stick.
Petitioner sought discovery from HDI of documents pertaining to: (1) the needle stick incident itself, including reports, memoranda, correspondence, statements, and medical records; (2) the AIDS patient whose blood was involved in the incident; (3) HDI's and SJMC's purchase and use of the medical products involved in the incident; (4) employee training and education regarding needle stick incidents at SJMC and other HDI facilities; (5) the occurrence, reporting, prevention, and treatment of such incidents at SJMC and other HDI facilities; (6) the employment, training, and supervision of petitioner at SJMC; (7) rules, policies, and protocols applicable to
petitioner at SJMC; and (8) the corporate structure and management of HDI and SJMC and the relationship between the two entities.
As to documents concerning corporate structure and management and the relationship between HDI and SJMC, HDI responded that " ll nonprivileged documents will be produced." HDI also promised to produce petitioner's canceled paychecks to the extent they were not attorney-client work product or otherwise privileged. But HDI maintained that the medical chart of the AIDS patient was protected by several statutory provisions, including Civil Code section 56 et seq., and Health and Safety Code section 199 et seq. And, as to every other request, HDI repeatedly objected that it "calls for mat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|