Bush v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bush v. Wright

222 A.D.2d 546, 635 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12972

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 546 (Bush v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bush v. Wright, 222 A.D.2d 546, 635 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12972 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an [547]*547order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated April 26, 1994, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Winthrop University Hospital which was for a protective order with respect to items 17, 18, and 19 of the plaintiffs’ notice of discovery and inspection, and denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to direct the defendant Winthrop University Hospital to respond thereto and vacated those items.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to Winthrop University Hospital.

Education Law § 6527 (3) exempts from disclosure under CPLR article 31 "the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function.” It is well settled that "[t]he purpose of this provision is to encourage peer review of physicians at medical review committee meetings by guaranteeing confidentiality to participants, in order to accomplish improvement in the quality of medical care” (Parker v St. Clare’s Hosp., 159 AD2d 919, 920). Here, the plaintiffs sought fetal monitor recording strips in connection with this action, but the defendant hospital advised them that the strips had been lost. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a formal complaint with the New York State Department of Health, which conducted an investigation and determined, inter alia, that the hospital had violated certain regulations governing its quality assurance program. The plaintiffs thereafter sought in their notice of discovery and inspection, inter alia, all reports, records, and memoranda pertaining to or made in response to the Department of Health investigation.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the foregoing items are privileged pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3). Indeed, the language in which the plaintiffs couched their challenged discovery demands, coupled with the fact that they instigated the State investigation into the matter and thus understood the nature of the materials sought, unequivocally demonstrate that the discovery demands at issue requested disclosure of protected "quality assurance” documents and records. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an [547]*547order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated April 26, 1994, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Winthrop University Hospital which was for a protective order with respect to items 17, 18, and 19 of the plaintiffs’ notice of discovery and inspection, and denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to direct the defendant Winthrop University Hospital to respond thereto and vacated those items.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to Winthrop University Hospital.

Education Law § 6527 (3) exempts from disclosure under CPLR article 31 "the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function.” It is well settled that "[t]he purpose of this provision is to encourage peer review of physicians at medical review committee meetings by guaranteeing confidentiality to participants, in order to accomplish improvement in the quality of medical care” (Parker v St. Clare’s Hosp., 159 AD2d 919, 920). Here, the plaintiffs sought fetal monitor recording strips in connection with this action, but the defendant hospital advised them that the strips had been lost. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a formal complaint with the New York State Department of Health, which conducted an investigation and determined, inter alia, that the hospital had violated certain regulations governing its quality assurance program. The plaintiffs thereafter sought in their notice of discovery and inspection, inter alia, all reports, records, and memoranda pertaining to or made in response to the Department of Health investigation.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the foregoing items are privileged pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3). Indeed, the language in which the plaintiffs couched their challenged discovery demands, coupled with the fact that they instigated the State investigation into the matter and thus understood the nature of the materials sought, unequivocally demonstrate that the discovery demands at issue requested disclosure of protected "quality assurance” documents and records. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 546, 635 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-v-wright-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack