Public Health Law – Page 6 – New York Appellate Digest

THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECOVER MEDICAID OVERPAYMENTS FROM PERSONAL CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn. over a two-justice dissent, determined that The City of New York Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services (HRA) does not have the authority to audit and recover overpayments of funds provided pursuant to the Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) from personal care service providers such as petitioner People Care Incorporated d/b/a Assisted Care:

The determinative issue on this appeal is not whether the HCRA funds were denominated as “Medicaid rates of payment” or “Medicaid rate adjustments” in the statute and the MOU [memorandum of understanding]. Rather, the issue presented here is whether, under the terms of the 2001 contract, Public Health Law § 2807-v(1)(bb)(i) and the MOU superseded the provisions of that contract as to the auditing and recoupment of HCRA funds. * * *

… [N]either Public Health Law § 2807-v(1)(bb), as the governing statute, nor the MOU between DOH [NYS Department of Health] and HRA, entered into pursuant to that statute, contains any language delegating DOH’s auditing and recoupment authority to HRA or any other agency. Matter of People Care Inc. v City of New York Human Resources Admin., 2019 NY Slip Op 05756, First Dep 7-23-19

July 23, 2019

Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Negligence, Privilege, Public Health Law

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

July 5, 2019

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Negligence, Public Health Law

DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW THERE WAS A COMPELLING NEED FOR DISCOVERY OF ‘ALCOHOL/DRUG TREATMENT/MENTAL HEALTH INFORMATION/HIV-RELATED INFORMATION’ IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DISCOVERY REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the defendants request for discovery of “Alcohol/Drug Treatment/Mental Health Information/HIV-Related Information” in this slip and fall case was not supported by evidence of a compelling need:

“[A] party must provide duly executed and acknowledged written authorizations for the release of pertinent medical records under the liberal discovery provisions of the CPLR when that party has waived the physician-patient privilege by affirmatively putting his or her physical or mental condition in issue” … However, Public Health Law § 2785(1) provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall issue an order for the disclosure of confidential HIV related information,” and the only exception to that prohibition that is pertinent in this case requires an application showing “a compelling need for disclosure of the information for the adjudication of a criminal or civil proceeding” (Public Health Law § 2785[2][a]).

Here, the defendants failed to proffer any showing of a compelling need for disclosure related to “HIV-Related Information.” Further, the defendants failed to submit an expert affidavit or any other evidence that would establish a connection between “Alcohol/Drug Treatment/Mental Health Information/HIV-Related Information,” and the cause of the accident, and failed to make any effort to link any such information to the plaintiff’s ability to recover from his injuries or his prognosis for future enjoyment of life … . Nesbitt v Advanced Serv. Solutions, 2019 NY Slip Op 04961, Second Dept 6-19-19

June 19, 2019

Civil Rights Law, Criminal Law, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Health Law

MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF THE SEXUAL ASSAULT, PURSUANT TO PETITIONER’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST, THE RECORDS ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical records of the victim of sexual assault could not be disclosed to the petitioner, who was convicted of the sexual assault, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. The medical records were protected from disclosure by the Public Health Law, the Civil Rights Law and the Public Officers Law:

“All government records are presumptively open for public inspection unless specifically exempt from disclosure” … . Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a) provides that an agency may deny access to records that are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute … . Here, the medical records of the victim sought by the petitioner are exempted from disclosure by Public Health Law §§ 2803-c(3)(f) and 2805-g(3) … . Also, the medical records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b, which, with exceptions not relevant here, prevents any public officer from disclosing documents that would identify the victim of a sex offense … . Further, the records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i) … . Matter of Crowe v Guccione, 2019 NY Slip Op 03044, Second Dept 4-24-19

April 24, 2019

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Health Law

RECORDS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING A POLICE OFFICER ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE EVEN IF THE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS REDACTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, affirming the appellate division, over a concurring opinion and two dissenting opinions, determined that the records of New York Police Department disciplinary proceedings concerning a police officer are exempt from disclosure, even if the identifying information in the records is redacted:

The FOIL exemption at issue, Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a), provides that an agency may deny access to records that “are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute.” The parties agree that the disciplinary decisions requested by the NYCLU are covered by a state statute: Civil Rights Law § 50-a. * * *

“There can be no question” that Civil Rights Law § 50-a permits court-ordered disclosure “only in the context of an ongoing litigation” … . Absent officer consent, protected personnel records are shielded from disclosure “except when a legitimate need for them has been demonstrated to obtain a court order” based on a “showing that they are actually relevant to an issue in a pending proceeding” … . Here, in the context of the NYCLU’s FOIL request, the requested records are not “relevant and material” to any pending litigation … , and accordingly, they are not disclosable. * * *

This case presents a straightforward application of Civil Rights Law § 50-a and Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a), which mandate confidentiality and supply no authority to compel redacted disclosure. To the extent the dissent would prefer to revoke civil rights protections afforded to police officers (Civil Rights Law § 50-a), victims of sex crimes (Civil Rights Law § 50-b), medical patients (Public Health Law § 2803-c [3] [f]), or others, those arguments are properly directed to the Legislature. Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v New York City Police Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 08423, CtApp 12-13-18

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW, POLICE OFFICERS

December 11, 2018

Constitutional Law, Mental Hygiene Law, Public Health Law, Trusts and Estates

DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a concurring opinion, determined that the decision to allow the withdrawal of life support from an 80-year-old developmentally disabled person (M.G.), who was in a vegetative state, did not violate M.G.'s right to equal protection under the law. Although M.G. had died, the appeal was considered as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

This is an appeal from an order that authorized petitioner physician, after a hearing pursuant to the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act (SCPA-1750-b), to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a developmentally disabled person (M.G.), in accordance with the decision of his guardian. Applying SCPA 1750-b's best interests standard, Supreme Court granted the order over the objection of Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) that a meaningful inquiry into M.G.'s end-of-life wishes should have been conducted because M.G. had some prior capacity to make health care decisions … . This case presents a similar equal protection claim to the one this Court rejected in [Matter of Chantel Nicole R. (Pamela R.) 34 AD3d 99]: whether treating an intellectually and developmentally disabled person who had some prior capacity to make health care decisions differently from a previously competent, non-disabled person violates the equal protection rights of the intellectually and developmentally disabled person. In Chantel, we concluded that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause, because intellectually and developmentally disabled persons are not similarly situated to once competent persons and that the disparate treatment of the SCPA 1750-b was rationally related to a “legitimate [government] interest in advancing the right of [intellectually and developmentally disabled] persons to be free from prolonged suffering” … . … [w]e reject the equal protection challenge in this case as well. * * *

MHLS moved to summarily dismiss the petition, arguing that petitioner should proceed under article 29-CC of the Public Health Law and not SCPA 1750-b, since M.G. was previously found to have capacity to request life-sustaining treatment, and thus a meaningful inquiry into his end-of-life wishes should control, rather than merely a “best interests” analysis, and that proceeding otherwise would violate his equal protection rights. Dr. Sloane, however, argued that the application was properly brought under SCPA 1750-b, since M.G. was in a permanent vegetative state, lacked capacity to make health care decisions, was developmentally disabled with a full-scale IQ of 47, had no advanced directives in place, and had not discussed his wishes with his guardian, who lived in Chicago, or anyone at his community residence. * * *

… [W]e are satisfied that Supreme Court's decision with regard to M.G. was consistent with SCPA 1750-b's requirements for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The undisputed medical evidence establishes that before his demise, M.G. was in a permanent vegetative state; he suffered from multiple organ failure of the lungs, kidneys, and brain. M.G. had no neurologic function and did not respond to stimuli or breathe without a ventilator. The medical expert's opinion was that the need for hemodialysis, the chest tubes, and ventilation were ongoing, that M.G.'s lack of cognitive ability could not be cured, and that there was no chance of meaningful neurological recovery. It was thus abundantly clear that M.G. was completely unable to interact with his environment, and that the medical probability that he would ever return to a cognitive sentient state, as distinguished from a chronic vegetative existence, was virtually non-existent. Any medical treatment administered would have provided minimal, if any, benefit and would only have postponed M.B.'s death rather than improve his life. In short, M.G.'s condition was irreversible, and treatment would have imposed an extraordinary burden on him… . The best interests of the patient under SCPA 1750-b embraces not only recovery or the avoidance of pain but also a dignified death. The guardian's decision conformed with the obligation to promote the patient's well-being, and to the extent possible, the decision of M.G. himself. Matter of Sloane v M.G., 2018 NY Slip Op 05800, First Dept 8-16-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/LIFE SUPPORT (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT ((DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))

August 16, 2018

Immunity, Municipal Law, Negligence, Public Health Law, Sepulcher

CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the city was immune from suit stemming from alleged interference with the right of sepulcher during Hurricane Sandy, which flooded the Bellevue Hospital morgue. The court further determined there was no special relationship between plaintiff and the city:

Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the right of sepulcher does not, by definition, trump governmental immunity … acted in its governmental capacity at all relevant times… . The specific act from which plaintiffs’ claims arise is the City’s treatment of the decedent’s body in the context of Hurricane Sandy, i.e., as the hurricane approached, once it had struck, and in its aftermath. Plaintiffs seek to ignore or minimize the significance of that context. However, their claims directly implicate the City’s emergency preparations and the decisions it made during and immediately after the unprecedented hurricane, which caused, among other things, unprecedented flooding in the Bellevue Hospital morgue — all quintessential governmental functions. Moreover, these preparations and decisions were discretionary, not ministerial … . Thus, the record demonstrates the elements of governmental function immunity from liability as a matter of law … .

Plaintiffs failed to establish the special relationship with the City required for holding the City liable for their injury … . In support of their contention that the City violated a statutory duty enacted for their benefit, they rely on statutes that do not contemplate private rights of action and, in any event, are not relevant to this case, which does not involve autopsy, dissection or unclaimed remains (see Public Health Law § 4215) or individuals fighting for control over the disposition of those remains … . Nor did plaintiffs establish that, in its treatment of the decedent’s body in the wake of Hurricane Sandy,the City voluntarily assumed a duty that generated their justifiable reliance … . Lee v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05626, First Dept 8-2-18

SEPULCHER (CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SEPULCHER, CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (SEPULCHER, CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (SEPULCHER, CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT))/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, SEPULCHER, CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT))

August 2, 2018

Administrative Law, Municipal Law, Public Health Law

NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeal, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the NYC Board of Health properly amended the health code to provide that children between the ages of 6 and 59 months who attended city regulated child care or school programs must receive annual flu vaccinations. The court went through all the Boreali (71 NY2d 11-14) factors, as well as all the preemption theories:

Separation of powers challenges often involve the question of whether a regulatory body has exceeded the scope of its delegated powers and encroached upon the legislative domain of policymaking … . * * *

In Boreali and subsequent cases, we have clarified the “difficult-to-define line between administrative rule-making and legislative policy-making” by articulating four “coalescing circumstances” relevant to rendering such a determination (71 NY2d at 11 …). These circumstances are: whether (1) the regulatory agency ” balanc[ed] costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines,’ or instead made value judgments entail[ing] difficult and complex choices between broad policy goals to resolve social problems'”… ; (2) the agency “merely filled in details of a broad policy or if it wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance'” … ; (3) the legislature had unsuccessfully attempted to enact laws pertaining to the issue… ; and (4) the agency used special technical expertise in the applicable field … . * * *

Public Health Law §§ 2164 and 2165 set forth mandatory vaccinations that are preconditions to enrollment in school and in institutions of higher education. Those statutes include exemptions, incorporate an appeal process, and explain the procedures to be followed when a student is unable to afford the necessary vaccinations. Taking each of the aforementioned statutes into consideration, the Appellate Division correctly determined that the flu vaccine rules are not preempted by state law. Garcia v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2018 NY Slip Op 04778, CtApp 6-28-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (FLU VACCINES, NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))/MUNICIPAL LAW (FLU VACCINES, NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))/FLU VACCINES (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))/SEPARATION OF POWERS (FLU VACCINES, NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))/PREEMPTION (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (NYC) (FLU VACCINES, NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))

June 28, 2018

Evidence, Medical Malpractice, Public Health Law

EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the Education Law and Public Health Law did not prohibit the release of the identities of persons who participated in a quality assurance review involving plaintiff doctor:

Plaintiffs’ claims in this suit are based on [Peconic Bay Medical Center’s] alleged misrepresentations about the existence of an investigation and the filing of an AAR [adverse action report], and the AAR did not report plaintiff for malpractice but for resigning during an ongoing investigation … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs’ request to compel defendants to un-redact the identities of nonparty participants in the quality assurance review process should be granted. Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m protect documents “prepared by or at the behest of” a quality assurance committee … . However, they do not protect the mere identities of participants. Brook v Peconic Bay Med. Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 04432, First Dept 6-14-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))

June 14, 2018

Civil Procedure, Employment Law, Labor Law, Privilege, Public Health Law

PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff in this whistleblower action was entitled to discover medical records protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Public Health Law (PHL). Plaintiff alleged he was fired, in violation Labor Law 740, in retaliation for complaining that defendant’s employees procured organs without performing tests and from people who still showed signs of life:

The records concerning these four individuals are material and necessary to plaintiff’s claim (see CPLR 3101[a]). To prevail on a claim for retaliatory termination in violation of Labor Law § 740(2), plaintiff must prove that he was fired because he objected to or threatened to disclose a practice that was in violation of a law or regulation … . The subject medical records will allegedly show that defendant pressured doctors to declare people dead in violation of regulations regarding the making of such determinations … .

… [B]ecause the subject disclosure would be made in the course of a judicial proceeding and pursuant to a qualified protective order, it is authorized under HIPAA… .

… PHL § 4351(8) renders defendant’s documents subject to the protections of the physician-patient privilege set forth at CPLR 4504. This privilege is personal to the patient and is not terminated by death … . It has not been expressly or implicitly waived in this case by the donors’ next of kin … . However, plaintiff demonstrated that the information in the medical records is material and necessary to his claim and that “the circumstances warrant overcoming the privilege and permitting discovery of the records with all identifying patient information appropriately redacted to protect patient confidentiality” … . Allowing disclosure under these circumstances is consistent with the public policy underlying the whistleblower statute, i.e., to encourage employees to report hazards to supervisors and the public … . McMahon v New York Organ Donor Network, 2018 NY Slip Op 03820, First Dept 5-29-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (WHISTLEBLOWERS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/HIPAA (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/WHISTLEBLOWERS (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/ORGAN TRANSPLANTS (PLAINTIFF IN THIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACTION ENTITLED TO DISCOVER MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))

May 29, 2018