Opinion
No. CV03-0348848 S
January 6, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DANBURY HOSPITAL MEDICAL AFFAIRS FILE RE DR. M. GLASSMAN
BACKGROUND
This is a medical malpractice case against the defendants, Mark Glassman, M.D. and Danbury Hospital. Dr. Glassman had privileges to practice at the hospital of the co-defendant, Danbury Hospital. During the course of discovery, a file from the office of Danbury Hospital Medical Affairs regarding Dr. Glassman was produced on November 8, 2004. Both defendants objected to the production of all and/or part of this file, claiming privilege. The Danbury Hospital filed a privilege log dated November 10, 2004 and December 7, 2004. Counsel for Dr. Glassman filed a privilege log dated December 3, 2004.
The court is in receipt of a set of documents described as Dr. Mark Glassman's credentialing file, i.e., the set of documents from the Danbury Hospital Medical Affairs Office, not yet disclosed to the plaintiff.
It was agreed by all parties that the court would review the file, in camera, prior to releasing any or all documents to the plaintiff. The court has reviewed the respective privilege logs. The court has also reviewed the December 13, 2004 Objection Re Privilege Log of the Plaintiff. The court has reviewed the Reply to Plaintiff's Objection to Privilege Log, dated November 14, 2004 (received December 15, 2004), submitted on behalf of Dr. Glassman. The court has reviewed the case of Babcock v. Bridgeport Hospital, 251 Conn. 790 (1999).
LAW
General Statutes § 19a-17b, in summary, protects against the release of peer review materials, that is, the documents used in or memorializing the evaluation of a doctor (health care provider) in regard to the quality and efficiency of services ordered or performed by that doctor. This evaluation includes "practice analysis." The proceedings of a medical review committee conducting a peer review "shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action . . ." Subsection (d)(4) allows the disclosure in any civil action of the fact that staff privileges were terminated or restricted. Section 19a-17b applies only to documents created via the proceedings of a medical review committee engaged in peer review. Babcock v. Bridgeport Hospital, 251 Conn. 790 (1999). 42 U.S.C. § 11137(b)(1) "[I]nformation reported under this subchapter is considered confidential and shall not be disclosed . . ." Neumann v. Johnson, Superior Court, complex litigation docket of New London at Norwich, Docket No. X04 CV 00 0120565 (August 29, 2001, Koletsky, J.).
DISCUSSION
Only counsel for Dr. Glassman claim that the entire file produced is privileged because "upon information and belief," it was prepared by a medical review committee from Danbury Hospital. There is no testimony or affidavit submitted which supports that position. It is also noted that the Danbury Hospital makes no such claim. Instead, the Danbury Hospital claims that seven (7) documents, one possibly misdated January 29, 1999 instead of the seemingly correct date of January 25, 1999, are documents produced from the National Practitioners Database, are subject to 42 U.S.C. § 11137(b) and are privileged.
The court concludes that the National Database documents are privileged. The documents do not appear to emanate from a peer review evaluation and are compilations of data from a national data coordinating source. The documents only contain the requesting entity's data numbers and identification, and the subject's name, date of birth, work place and home addresses and professional schooling and licensure data. There is no peer evaluation information in the reports from the National Database concerning Dr. Glassman. Nevertheless, per federal statute, the documents are privileged and not subject to disclosure.
The balance of the material in the Mark Glassman, M.D. "credentialing file" so described by the Danbury Hospital, is information regarding his schooling, professional degrees, privileges authorizations, reappointment forms, continuing education, insurance coverage documents, curriculum vitae, with a listing of publications and correspondence regarding medical record suspensions and fines, and Dr. Glassman's resignation letter. These documents are not privileged.
The court concludes that there are also peer review generated materials, specifically an October 1, 2001 performance evaluation and the correspondence between Matthew Miller, M.D., dated September 19, 2002, October 28 and 29, 2002, and Dr. Glassman, and Ellen Early, Administrative Coordinator, dated April 1, 2003 and March 12, 2003, and Dr. Glassman.
The court finds that the correspondence was the result of an evaluation of a medical peer group headed by Matthew Miller, M.D., Vice President of Medical Affairs. The court concludes that the correspondence was due to an evaluation or practice analysis of Dr. Glassman's conduct by the Vice President of Medical Affairs, as a peer reviewer. Therefore, the initial letter of September 19, 2002 and the follow up correspondence of Dr. Miller and his staff to Dr. Glassman, dated October 28, 2002, October 29, 2002, March 12, 2003 and April 1, 2003, are privileged and will not be produced to the plaintiff. There is also a professional performance evaluation of Dr. Glassman dated October 1, 2001 and signed by department heads. The court finds this to be a peer review document and is privileged.
So ordered.
John Redmond Downey, Judge