Preview:

a1261-11.opn.html

N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.23 to -12.25. We also examine their interplay with other laws and procedures, including the qualified common-law privilege for self-critical analysis of medical peer review documents, as set forth in Christy v. Salem, 366 N.J. Super. 535 (App. Div. 2004). "> Original Wordprocessor Version (NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version (NOTE: The status of this decision is Published.)

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1261-11T1

C.A., a Minor, by Her Mother and Guardian ad Litem, ESTHER APPLEGRAD, ESTHER APPLEGRAD, I
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

August 9, 2012

ndividually, and GEDALIA APPLEGRAD, Individually,

APPELLATE DIVISION

Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Respondents,

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1261-11.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:39:03 PM]

a1261-11.opn.html

v.

ERIC BENTOLILA, M.D., and GITA PATEL, R.N.,

Defendants,

and

THE VALLEY HOSPITAL, KOURTNEY KACZMARSKI, R.N., MARY BROWN, R.T., and YIE-HSIEN CHU, M.D.,

Defendants-Respondents/ Cross-Appellants. ____________________________________ August 9, 2012 Argued April 30, 2012 - Decided

Before Judges Sabatino, Ashrafi, and Fasciale.

On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-0908-08.

Cynthia A. Walters argued the cause for appellants/cross-respondents (Budd Larner, P.C., attorneys; Ms. Walters, of counsel and on the brief).

Rowena M. Duran argued the cause for respondents/cross-appellants (Buckley Theroux Kline & Petraske, LLC, attorneys for The Valley Hospital, Mary Brown, R.T., and Yie-Hsien Chu, M.D.; Vasios, Kelly & Strollo, P.A., attorneys for Kourtney Kaczmarski; Ms. Duran and Karla M. Donovan, of counsel; Ms. Duran, Ms. Donovan, and Linda Fulop-Slaughter, on the joint briefs).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1261-11.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:39:03 PM]

a1261-11.opn.html

Susan J. Dougherty, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey (Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Dougherty, on the brief).

E. Drew Britcher argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Britcher, Leone & Roth, attorneys; Mr. Britcher, of counsel and on the brief; Kristen B. Miller, on the brief).

Ross A. Lewin argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Hospital Association (Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, attorneys; Mr. Lewin, of counsel and on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SABATINO, J.A.D.

In this case of first impression, we ascertain the dimensions of the confidentiality provisions contained within the Patient Safety Act (the "PSA" or the "Act"), N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.23 to -12.25. We also examine their interplay with other laws and procedures, including the qualified common-law privilege for self-critical analysis of medical peer review documents, as set forth in Christy v. Salem, 366 N.J. Super. 535 (App. Div. 2004). The Legislature adopted the PSA in 2004 in an effort to promote within health care facilities the candid exploration of what may have caused, or nearly caused, an adverse event to a patient, in order to better understand how such risks may be prevented in the future. We consider that policy objective in the context of this medical malpractice case, in which it is alleged that an infant was negligently deprived of oxygen at birth, resulting in her brain damage. Plaintiffs have sought to obtain certain documents that were internally generated within the hospital after an investigation of the care provided to the newborn and her mother. Defendants contend that those documents are privileged from disclosure under the PSA. For the reasons that follow, we hold that post-event investigatory and analytic documents exclusively created in compliance with the PSA and its associated regulations, and not created for some other statutory

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1261-11.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:39:03 PM]

a1261-11.opn.html

or licensure purpose, are absolutely privileged from disclosure under the PSA. The PSA's confidentiality provisions insulate such documents from outside access. They do so regardless of a plaintiff's asserted need for disclosure and regardless of whether the documents contain factual information in addition to subjective opinions. However, if the specified procedures of the PSA and the related regulations have not been observed, or if the documents have been generated for additional non-PSA purposes, then the PSA's absolute privilege does not apply. Instead, other legal principles govern, such as those expressed in Christy, depending upon the kind of document involved. Applying these principles, we affirm in part the trial court's application of the PSA to the contested documents, and reverse it in part. I. Before delving into the facts and procedural history of this litigation, we first provide, by way of context, an introductory overview of the PSA and of our decision in Christy, both of which were key aspects of the trial court proceedings. A. The PSA was signed into law on April 27, 2004 and took effect six months later. L. 2004, c. 9,

Download a1261-11.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law