Fridono v. Chuman
2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 747, 747 N.E.2d 610, 2001 WL 463313 (2001)
Rule of Law:
The results or final actions taken as a consequence of a medical peer review process, such as restrictions on a physician's staff privileges, are not protected by the peer review privilege statutes and are therefore discoverable and admissible in judicial proceedings, even if the internal deliberations and opinions of the peer review committee remain confidential.
Facts:
- In 1977, Rocco Fridono first injured his back, and by 1979, he experienced pain in his neck and upper extremities, for which he was treated by a chiropractor.
- Fridono first visited Dr. Charles M. Chuman in October 1985, after consulting several other physicians, and Chuman diagnosed polyradiculopathy, recommending conservative treatment.
- Between 1986 and 1988, Fridono sought treatment from various other medical professionals, including two psychiatrists who noted his psychological issues and other specialists, without finding lasting relief for his worsening pain.
- In November 1988, Dr. Larry Salberg, director of the Northern Indiana Neurological Institute, evaluated Fridono and 'strongly disapprove[d]' of any further surgical procedures until comprehensive neurological and neuropsychological evaluations and trials of medical, psychological, and physical therapies were completed.
- Fridono returned to Dr. Chuman on March 9, 1989, and although Chuman attempted to refer him back to Salberg, Fridono declined.
- After a psychiatric consult for Fridono's verbal abusiveness to nursing staff, Dr. Chuman performed a cervical laminectomy on Fridono on April 19, 1989.
Procedural Posture:
- Rocco Fridono initiated a medical malpractice action by filing a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance in 1991.
- In May 1993, a medical review panel determined that Dr. Chuman breached the standard of care but unanimously concluded that the care was not the proximate cause of Fridono's damages.
- Following the medical panel review, Fridono filed his complaint in the Lake Circuit Court (a state trial court) in October 1993, alleging Dr. Chuman's failure to comply with applicable standards of care.
- A jury trial commenced in November 1999, during which Fridono presented expert testimony from Dr. William Fischer via videotaped deposition.
- On cross-examination, Dr. Chuman used a letter agreement, obtained through discovery in other Illinois proceedings, that detailed restrictions on Dr. Fischer's staff privileges, to impeach Fischer's testimony after Fischer denied such restrictions.
- Fridono moved in limine to preclude the use of the document and redact related deposition testimony, but the trial court denied the motion.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Chuman on November 12, 1999.
- Fridono, as appellant, appealed the jury verdict to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the medical peer review privilege statute, which protects committee deliberations and communications, also prevent the disclosure and admission of the final action taken as a result of the peer review process—specifically, a document detailing restrictions on a physician's staff privileges—for purposes of impeachment in a medical malpractice action?
Opinions:
Majority - Brook, Judge
No, the medical peer review privilege statute does not prevent the disclosure and admission of the final action taken as a result of the peer review process, such as a document detailing restrictions on a physician's staff privileges, for impeachment purposes in a medical malpractice action. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the document and to refuse Fridono's tendered jury instruction. The court first addressed the apparent conflict between Indiana Code Section 34-80-15-1, which permits a hospital's governing board to disclose the 'final action taken' regarding a professional health care provider, and Section 34-80-15-9, which states that 'records or determinations of or communications to a peer review committee' are not discoverable or admissible in judicial proceedings without a waiver. The court reconciled these statutes by distinguishing between the 'determinations of' a peer review committee and the 'final action taken' by a hospital as a result of peer review proceedings. It reasoned that the purpose of the peer review privilege is to foster an effective review of medical care by encouraging candid communication among panel members. To broadly interpret the privilege to shield the results or consequences of the peer review process would place an unreasonable burden on litigants and unfairly impede the truth-finding process without actually furthering the privilege's underlying purpose. The court concluded that 'determinations of' a peer review committee include opinions, conclusions, recommendations, and discussions that occur within the peer review process itself. In contrast, the 'final action taken' refers to the ultimate results or consequences, such as the modification, restriction, or termination of a physician's privileges, which are outside the scope of the privilege. This interpretation prevents Section 34-80-15-1 from being rendered meaningless. The court cited persuasive Illinois and other state laws that support this distinction, protecting the internal review process but not its final outcomes. Therefore, the letter agreement detailing restrictions on Dr. Fischer's privileges, being a 'final action,' was discoverable and admissible, particularly for impeachment to challenge an expert's credibility and qualifications. The trial court also did not err in refusing Fridono's tendered jury instruction regarding a health care provider's duty to refer. The court found that the instruction was not supported by the facts, as Dr. Chuman was qualified to treat Fridono's condition, which fell within his specialty, and Fridono had already received various conservative treatments prior to the surgery. Furthermore, the essence of Fridono’s requested instruction was adequately covered by other jury instructions given by the court on a physician’s standard of care and judgment in selecting treatments.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarification on the scope of the medical peer review privilege, striking a balance between protecting the candid deliberations of peer review committees and ensuring the discoverability of material information in litigation. By explicitly distinguishing between the internal 'determinations' and the observable 'final actions' of a peer review, the court prevents hospitals from using the privilege to shield significant information about a physician's professional standing. This ruling has a substantial impact on medical malpractice cases, as it affirms that evidence of an expert witness's restricted privileges, stemming from a peer review, is admissible for impeachment, thereby enhancing the ability of parties to challenge expert credibility and promoting the truth-finding function of the courts.
