McGehee v. Farber

Summary

The North Carolina Court of Appeals reviews an interlocutory discovery order in a medical malpractice action involving the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act privilege, the medical review-committee privilege, and the physician-patient privilege. The court holds that the SAFE report and redacted patient-complaint spreadsheet were not protected by the asserted privileges, but that the trial court’s order was overbroad insofar as it compelled testimony concerning information learned solely through medical-review committee proceedings. The court affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands for clarification.

Holdings

1. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction because the nonfrivolous assertion of statutory privileges directly related to the information ordered disclosed and therefore implicated a substantial right that could be lost absent immediate review.
2. An order compelling disclosure of information claimed to be statutorily privileged is reviewed de novo, and the party asserting the privilege must provide sufficient evidence showing that the material falls within the statutory privilege.
3. The SAFE report was not shown to be privileged patient safety work product under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act because UNC Health failed to demonstrate that it was created for reporting to a patient safety organization or that it identified or constituted deliberations or analysis of a patient safety evaluation system.
4. The trial court properly permitted inquiry into matters related to the decedent's care and other incidents involving Dr. Farber, but it erred to the extent its order required testimony about information learned solely through protected medical review-committee proceedings.
5. The spreadsheet of complaints submitted to UNC Health's patient-relations department was not protected by the physician-patient privilege under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53, and the trial court properly ordered its production subject to redaction of protected health information and a protective order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the interlocutory discovery order because the asserted Patient Safety Act, medical review-committee, and physician-patient privileges affected a substantial right.
2. Whether the SAFE report was protected patient safety work product under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005.
3. Whether the medical review-committee privilege barred deposition questions seeking information learned solely through medical review-committee proceedings.
4. Whether a spreadsheet of patient complaints concerning Dr. Farber was protected by the physician-patient privilege under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.

Disposition

other