Summary
This Superior Court memorandum and order resolves a hospital's motion for a protective order to block discovery of peer review committee documents in a medical malpractice action. The court examines whether Massachusetts law or public policy recognizes a privilege for such records, balancing the need for candid medical quality assurance against the judicial system's interest in uncovering the truth. Finding no statutory or common-law privilege, the court denies the motion and rules that the subpoenaed materials are discoverable provided they are relevant to the plaintiff's claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether documents generated by a hospital peer‑review committee are discoverable or protected by a qualified privilege under Massachusetts law.
Holdings
- No qualified privilege exists; the minutes, reports and other documents of peer‑review committees are discoverable where relevant to the plaintiff’s negligence claim.
Key quotations
““confidentiality is essential to effective functioning of these staff meetings ... Constructive professional criticism cannot occur in an atmosphere of apprehension that one doctor's suggestion will be used as a denunciation of a colleague's conduct in a malpractice suit.... As doctors have a responsibility for life and death decisions, there is an overwhelming public interest having those staff meetings held on a confidential basis so that the flow of ideas and advice can continue unimpeded.”” (at 250-251)
““In my view, the public interest in the truth‑seeking function of the judicial system outweighs the desirability of protecting the peer review process.”” (at 360)
Factual background
Robin Lang sued three physicians for alleged negligent treatment. During discovery Lang subpoenaed hospital rules, personnel files, and minutes and reports of peer‑review committees. The hospital, not a party, objected, claiming the materials were privileged.
Procedural history
The plaintiff in a malpractice action subpoenaed hospital peer‑review committee documents; the deponent hospital moved for a protective order asserting privilege, which the Superior Court denied.