Adams v. Bassett Healthcare Network

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department, held that two hospital RL6 incident reports were not shown to be protected from discovery under Education Law § 6527 (3) or the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. The court found that the hospital's generalized affidavit and boilerplate confidentiality language did not establish that the reports were prepared for or reviewed in a qualifying medical review process or reported to a patient safety organization. The court modified the lower court's order by granting the plaintiff's motion to compel production of the reports and denying the defendant's cross-motion for a protective order.

Holdings

1. Bassett failed to establish that the RL6 reports were prepared for, submitted to, or actually reviewed through a medical review or quality-assurance process protected by Education Law § 6527 (3); the reports therefore were not exempt from discovery under that statute.
2. Bassett failed to establish that the RL6 reports constituted privileged patient safety work product because it did not show that the specific reports were actually provided to and reviewed by a patient safety organization.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bassett established that the two RL6 reports were exempt from discovery under Education Law § 6527 (3).
2. Whether Bassett established that the RL6 reports constituted privileged patient safety work product under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005.
3. Whether Supreme Court properly denied Adams's motion to compel and granted Bassett's cross-motion for a protective order.

Disposition

other