Yocabet, M. v. UPMC

Opinion

J-A04009-15 J-A04010-15 2015 PA Super 132

MICHAEL J. YOCABET, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND : UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH : PHYSICIANS :

:

APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN : SHADYSIDE, :

:

Appellant :

: :

CHRISTINA L. MECANNIC, :

:

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND : UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH : PHYSICIANS :

:

APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN : SHADYSIDE, :

:

Appellant : No. 569 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered March 11, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No(s): G.D. NO. 11-19112, G.D. NO. 11-19113

MICHAEL J. YOCABET, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

J-A04009-15 J-A04010-15 :

UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND : UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH : PHYSICIANS :

:

APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN : SHADYSIDE, :

:

Appellant :

: :

CHRISTINA L. MECANNIC, :

:

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND : UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH : PHYSICIANS :

:

APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN : SHADYSIDE, :

:

Appellant : No. 1230 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered June 26, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No(s): G.D. NO. 11-19112, G.D. NO. 11-19113

BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,∗ JJ.

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.:

FILED: June 5, 2015

For the reasons provided by the Majority, I too would affirm the March

11, 2014 order. I therefore join Part II of the Majority Opinion. However,

∗

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

3

J-A04009-15 J-A04010-15 unlike the Majority, I also would affirm the June 26, 2014 order. Thus, I

dissent to Part III of the Majority Opinion.

As to the June 26, 2014 order, I agree with the trial court’s

assessment of UPMC’s attorney-client-privilege argument. UPMC did not

claim that Ms. Concordia is a lawyer, and nothing in the record would permit

a finding that her presentation to the Board was a discussion with legal

counsel. For these reasons, I conclude that the trial court properly

determined that the attorney-client privilege does not protect the

information the plaintiffs sought in requests 23 and 24.

I further note that the trial court refused to address UPMC’s claim that

the information in-question was protected by the peer review privilege,

essentially because UPMC failed to present the court with a developed

argument in support of that claim. Because I agree with the court, I believe

the peer review privilege is not grounds for relief concerning the June 26th

order.

For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s orders.