 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rinaldi v. City View Nursing & Rehabilitation Center12/1/2005
di. City View has now appealed from that order.
{ } In its first assignment of error, City View argues that the trial court erred in ordering the production of items A through E, G and H of the privilege log, because the documents are incident reports protected by R.C. 2305.253, which provides:
{ } "(A) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of section 149.43, 1751.21, 2305.24, 2305.25, 2305.251, 2305.252, or 2305.28 of the Revised Code, an incident report or risk management report and the contents of an incident report or risk management report are not subject to discovery in, and are not admissible in evidence in the trial of, a tort action. *."
{ } In light of City View's reliance on this statute, Rinaldi filed a motion to dismiss City View's appeal for lack of a final appealable order. He argues that because R.C. 2503.253 became effective on April 9, 2003, after Lance died in her fall down the stairs at City View, but before Rinaldi filed suit on her behalf, it does not apply to this case. Rinaldi contends that the "incident report" privilege of R.C. 2905.253 was not established until 20 months after the cause of action in this case accrued and thus cannot apply to this matter. City View responds that R.C. 2305.253 applies to this action because it is a procedural law that went into effect prior to the filing of Rinaldi's complaint.
{ } Assuming, without deciding, that R.C. 2305.253 applies to this action and discovery dispute, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's order that City View produce the alleged "incident reports."
{ } Under Ohio law, it is well established that the trial court is vested with broad discretion when it comes to matters of discovery, and the "standard of review of a trial court's decision in a discovery matter is whether the court abused its discretion." Mauzy v. Kelly Svcs., Inc. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 578. Absent a clear abuse of that discretion, the lower court's decision should not be reversed. Mobberly v. Hendricks (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 839, 845. A party seeking to overturn the lower court's discovery ruling must demonstrate that the decision was "unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." See Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217.
{ } R.C. 2305.25(D) defines incident reports as:
{ } "A report of an incident involving injury or potential injury to a patient as a result of patient care provided by health care providers, including both individuals who provide health care and entities that provide health care, that is prepared by or for the use of a peer review committee of a health care entity and is within the scope of the functions of that committee." (Emphasis added).
{ } Further, R.C. 2505.25(E)(1) defines "peer review committee" as:
{ } " * a utilization review committee, quality assessment committee, performance improvement committee, tissue committee, credentialing committee, or other committee that does either of the following:
{ } "(a) Conducts professional credentialing or quality review activities involving the competence of, professional conduct of, or quality of care provided by health care providers, including both individuals who provide health care and entities that provide health care;
{ } "(b) Conducts any other attendant hearing process initiated as a result of a peer review committee's recommendations or actions."
{ } In its notice of submitting its privileged documents to the trial court for an in camera inspection, City View set forth the history of the discovery dispute regarding the documents and then stated, "Defendant City View has submitted its privilege log and coordina
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|