Lowy v. Peacehealth

280 P.3d 1078 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, a staff physician, was admitted to D as a patient. While a patient, P sustained ulna nerve damage causing serious permanent impairment to her left arm. P claims that she can no longer practice her specialties of obstetrics, gynecology, and surgery. P testified that she became aware of about 170 IV injuries at D when she saw a list on a computer screen giving details of IV injuries with the patient names replaced by identification numbers. P brought a medical negligence action, alleging, among other things, corporate negligence on the part of D. P sought to obtain, through a deposition information relating to instances of “IV infusion complications and/or injuries at D for the years 2000-2008.” The requested information is within the hospital's records and is relevant and otherwise discoverable. D does not have the capability to electronically search the records. D moved for a protective order because it would have to locate the information by going through thousands of patient files by hand. Even P conceded, that an individual search of all of the hospital records for a nine-year period would be unduly burdensome. P pointed out that the list she had seen, created for quality assurance purposes, identified instances of IV infusion injuries. P posits that it would not be unduly burdensome for D to consult that list to locate the relevant patient files and produce only the relevant patient files after redacting sensitive patient information. D claims that the list was created for the sole purpose of quality review. Because the list itself was prepared for purposes of quality assurance by its quality improvement committee it was protected from discovery. P argued that the statutory protections for quality assurance information do not prevent D from conducting an internal review of its quality improvement committee information in order to locate unprotected information. The lower court first agreed with P but changed its mind and ruled for D. The Court of Appeals reversed. D appealed.