Grandstaff v. State
2007 Alas. App. LEXIS 204, 2007 WL 4227358, 171 P.3d 1176 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory privilege under Alaska Statute 18.23.030(a) that protects medical peer review records from subpoena and discovery applies only in civil actions and does not extend to criminal proceedings.
Facts:
- Dr. Stephen A. Grandstaff, a physician in Fairbanks, treated several female patients, including S.Y. and S.P., who had documented histories of drug addiction.
- Grandstaff prescribed large quantities of narcotic drugs to these patients, often in exchange for sexual contact or intercourse.
- In September 1997, Grandstaff told patient S.Y. he could not give her pills for nothing, and later had sex with her after providing her with Percocet.
- In December 1997, Grandstaff met S.Y. at a hotel and gave her narcotic analgesics, which caused her to become impaired and pass out; she awoke to find Grandstaff having sex with her.
- Grandstaff engaged in various nonconsensual and consensual sexual acts with patient S.P. in his office, after which he would provide her with drug prescriptions or samples.
- Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, where Grandstaff had privileges, initiated a peer review investigation into his conduct.
- During the peer review process and related investigations by the State Medical Board, Grandstaff made inculpatory statements and admissions regarding his sexual contact with patients.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Alaska indicted Stephen A. Grandstaff in the Superior Court (trial court) on a 105-count indictment.
- Grandstaff filed numerous pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment, sever the sexual assault counts from the drug and theft counts, and suppress evidence; these motions were generally denied.
- After a trial, a jury convicted Grandstaff of first-degree sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, three counts of second-degree theft, and sixty-eight counts of misconduct involving a controlled substance.
- The jury acquitted Grandstaff of one sexual assault count, one theft count, and all counts related to patient E.S.
- The Superior Court judge imposed a composite sentence of 34 years with 15 years suspended, for a total of 19 years to serve.
- Grandstaff, as the appellant, appealed his convictions and sentence to the Court of Appeals of Alaska, with the State of Alaska as the appellee.
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 statutory privilege that shields hospital peer review records from disclosure in civil actions also apply to prevent their use as evidence in a criminal prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, Judge.
No, the statutory privilege for medical peer review records does not apply in criminal proceedings. The court reasoned that while the statute's initial language appears broad, it must be read as a harmonious whole. A subsequent provision in the same statute creates an exception for information from original sources in 'a civil action,' which would be incongruous if the privilege applied to both civil and criminal cases. Furthermore, the court found that the legislative history, including a contemporaneous interpretation by the State Medical Board chair that was not corrected by the legislature, supports limiting the privilege to civil matters. Citing the principle that evidentiary privileges should be narrowly construed, the court concluded that the public interest in prosecuting criminal conduct outweighs the policy of promoting candor in peer review in this context. The court also rejected Grandstaff's other claims, finding that his psychotherapist-patient privilege was waived by his signed releases and that his statements to a police informant were voluntary and not the product of coercive interrogation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the medical peer review privilege in Alaska, establishing a clear precedent that it does not shield information from prosecutors in criminal investigations. By limiting the privilege to the civil context, the court prioritizes the state's interest in investigating and prosecuting criminal misconduct over the policy goal of fostering complete candor in internal hospital reviews. This ruling limits the confidentiality that physicians can expect when participating in peer review and increases the likelihood that admissions made during such proceedings can be used against them in a subsequent criminal case. The decision will likely influence how hospitals and physicians approach internal investigations involving potentially criminal behavior.
