Krusac v. Covenant Medical Center, Inc
865 N.W.2d 908, 497 Mich. 251 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Michigan's peer-review privilege statutes, MCL 333.20175(8) and MCL 333.21515, render all records, data, and knowledge collected for a peer-review committee confidential and not subject to discovery, and this protection includes objective facts contained within an otherwise privileged incident report.
Facts:
- Dorothy Krusac, an 80-year-old patient, underwent a cardiac catheterization procedure at Covenant Medical Center.
- Immediately following the procedure, Krusac began moving her legs and rolled off the operating table.
- Three medical personnel who were present, including Nurse Deborah Colvin, were able to catch Krusac and cradle her gently to the floor.
- Krusac initially denied hitting her head but later complained of neck and back pain.
- A CT scan performed later that day showed no evidence of injury from the fall.
- Shortly after the surgery and fall, Dorothy Krusac died.
- Following the incident, Nurse Colvin filled out an incident report and submitted it to her supervisor.
Procedural Posture:
- John Krusac, as personal representative of Dorothy Krusac's estate, filed a medical malpractice complaint against Covenant Medical Center, Inc. in the Saginaw Circuit Court (trial court).
- During discovery, Plaintiff filed a motion in limine requesting an in camera inspection of an incident report.
- The trial court initially denied the motion, finding the report was protected by the peer-review privilege.
- On Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the trial court reviewed the report in camera and, relying on Harrison v Munson Healthcare, Inc., ordered Defendant to produce the portion containing objective facts.
- Defendant sought leave to appeal this order to the Michigan Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) and moved to stay the proceedings.
- The Court of Appeals denied Defendant's application for leave to appeal and its motion for a stay.
- Defendant then sought leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court (highest state court), which granted both the motion to stay and the application for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Michigan's peer-review privilege statutes, MCL 333.20175(8) and MCL 333.21515, protect the objective facts contained within an incident report created for a peer-review committee from discovery in a medical malpractice lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. Michigan's peer-review privilege statutes protect the objective facts contained within an incident report from discovery. The plain language of MCL 333.20175(8) and MCL 333.21515 protects the 'records, data, and knowledge' collected for or by a peer-review committee. The ordinary dictionary definitions of these terms plainly encompass objective facts. This comprehensive privilege is intended to encourage candid and conscientious assessment of hospital practices to reduce morbidity and mortality. The court explicitly overruled the Court of Appeals' decision in Harrison v Munson Healthcare, Inc., which had created an exception for objective facts. The court reasoned that while the privilege may make obtaining evidence more difficult for a plaintiff, the facts of an incident are still discoverable through other means, such as depositions of eyewitnesses and review of the patient's official medical records.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens Michigan's statutory peer-review privilege by eliminating a judicially created exception for 'objective facts' found in incident reports. By overruling the recent Harrison precedent, the Michigan Supreme Court signaled a return to a strict, textualist interpretation of the privilege statutes. The ruling makes it more difficult for medical malpractice plaintiffs to obtain internal hospital reports that might contain damaging information or reveal inconsistencies in witness testimony. Consequently, plaintiffs' attorneys must rely more heavily on traditional discovery methods like depositions and expert analysis of medical records to build their cases.
