You are here: / / STATEMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH A HOSPITAL’S QUALITY ASSURANCE...
, , , ,

STATEMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH A HOSPITAL’S QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO THE EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW; THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence, and refusing to follow the 2nd Department, determined certain statements made in connection with a hospital’s (SUNY Upstate’s) quality assurance investigation were privileged pursuant to the Education Law and Public Health Law and therefore were not subject to discovery in this medical malpractice action:

“The New York State Education Law shields from disclosure the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical and dental malpractice prevention program’ ” ( … see Public Health Law § 2805-m [2]). Although there is an exception to that privilege, “the exception is narrow” … and is limited to “statements made by any person in attendance at such a [quality assurance] meeting who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting” (Education Law § 6527 [3]; see Public Health Law § 2805-m [2] …).

Here, the “statements” at issue were provided shortly after the incident and were obtained as part of SUNY Upstate’s quality assurance investigation. The statements, however, were not made at a quality assurance committee meeting; nor were they made in response to any inquiries initiated by the committee … . None of the defendants appeared at any committee meeting. Thus, we agree with SUNY Upstate and defendants that plaintiff’s proposed construction of the statutory exception would not give any practical effect to the phrase “in attendance,” but rather would render that phrase meaningless … . Further, the Court of Appeals specifically instructed that the exception is “narrow and limited to statements given at an otherwise privileged peer review meeting” … .  Following plaintiff’s proposed construction “would extend the [statutory] exception to a point where it would swallow the general rule that materials used by a hospital in quality review and malpractice prevention programs are strictly confidential” … . Nowelle B. v Hamilton Med., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05464, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

You might also like
THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR THE SORA HEARING WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; THE NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE (FOURTH DEPT).
Questions of Fact Whether Name Added to Bank Account Created a Convenience Account or a Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
A DETECTIVE WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; TESTIMONY ABOUT THE “BLINDED” PHOTO ARRAY IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED; THE DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A WITNESS’S CRIMINAL HISTORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURTAILED; ANY ERRORS DEEMED HARMLESS (FOURTH DEPT).
STATUTE CRIMINALIZING THE POSSESSION OF AN UNLICENSED FIREARM DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DESCRIPTION OF CLOTHES WORN BY THE SUSPECT DID NOT MATCH THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE MAN OBSERVED BY THE POLICE, THE STOP OF THE CAR THE MAN GOT INTO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, SEIZED WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
Failure to Read Defendant His Miranda Rights, After the Defendant Interrupted the Reading of the Rights by Telling the Officer He Knew His Rights, Required Suppression of the Statements
INSUFFICIENT SHOWING THAT SEX OFFENDER’S VIOLATION OF NON-SEXUAL TERMS OF HIS STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) JUSTIFIED A FINDING HE IS UNABLE TO CONTROL SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, COMMITMENT TO LOCKED FACILITY REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RECORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE HOW THE TRIAL COURT HANDLED NOTES FROM... CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE...