You are here: / Public Health Law
, , , ,

REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a report concerning an investigation by the Department of Health which cited defendant health system for failure to inform plaintiff and his family of the unintentional disconnection of a heart-lung machine was not subject to disclosure:

Defendant met its burden of establishing that the information contained in the report was ” generated in connection with a quality assurance review function pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) or a malpractice prevention program pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-j’ “… . Thus, the information contained in the report is expressly exempted from disclosure under CPLR article 31 pursuant to the confidentiality conferred on information gathered by defendant in accordance with Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention that the privilege is “negated” because the report purportedly contains information that was improperly omitted from Pasek’s [plaintiff’s] medical records, it is well settled that “information which is privileged is not subject to disclosure no matter how strong the showing of need or relevancy”… . Indeed, the purpose of the privilege “is to enhance the objectivity of the review process’ and to assure that medical review [or quality assurance] committees may frankly and objectively analyze the quality of health services rendered’ by hospitals . . . , and thereby improve the quality of medical care” … . Pasek v Catholic Health Sys., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02069, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ( REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT DETOXIFICATION FACILITY NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEATH OF A MAN WHO WAS TREATED, LEFT AND WAS FOUND DEAD A MONTH LATER, DEFENDANTS POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF CAUSATION BUT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CAUSATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant detoxification facility was not entitled to summary judgment on the negligence and wrongful death causes of action brought on behalf of decedent, DeJesus, who had been treated at the facility, left and was found dead a month later. The defendants pointed to the plaintiff's inability to prove causation as grounds for summary judgment. However, it was the defendants' burden to affirmatively demonstrate the absence of causation, which they did not do. (Another example of the strict analytical criteria used by the appellate courts for review of summary judgment motions.) The court also held the Public Health Law cause of action should have been dismissed because the detoxification facility was not a nursing home and therefore was not subject to the Public Health Law:

Defendants, however, failed to submit affirmative evidence establishing that their alleged negligence did not, as a matter of law, proximately cause DeJesus's death. The fact that DeJesus's body was discovered a month after he disappeared is not sufficient, in itself, to warrant summary judgment in defendants' favor. Although defendants submitted DeJesus's death certificate, that document states only that the manner and cause of death were undetermined, and does not definitively rule out the requisite causal connection. Further, the autopsy report submitted with defendants' motion papers is incomplete, and does not identify the cause of death.

Because defendants merely pointed to perceived gaps in plaintiff's proof, they are not entitled to summary judgment on the negligence and wrongful death claims … . Hairston v Liberty Behavioral Mgt. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00004, First Dept 1-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DETOXIFICATION FACILITY NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEATH OF A MAN WHO WAS TREATED, LEFT AND WAS FOUND DEAD A MONTH LATER, DEFENDANTS POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF'S PROOF OF CAUSATION BUT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CAUSATION (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DEFENDANT DETOXIFICATION FACILITY NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEATH OF A MAN WHO WAS TREATED, LEFT AND WAS FOUND DEAD A MONTH LATER, DEFENDANTS POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF'S PROOF OF CAUSATION BUT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CAUSATION (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DETOXIFICATION FACILITY NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEATH OF A MAN WHO WAS TREATED, LEFT AND WAS FOUND DEAD A MONTH LATER, DEFENDANTS POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF'S PROOF OF CAUSATION BUT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CAUSATION (FIRST DEPT)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DETOXIFICATION FACILITY NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEATH OF A MAN WHO WAS TREATED, LEFT AND WAS FOUND DEAD A MONTH LATER, DEFENDANTS POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF'S PROOF OF CAUSATION BUT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CAUSATION (FIRST DEPT))/DETOXIFICATION FACILITY (NOT A NURSING HOME, NOT SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (DETOXIFICATION FACILITY, NOT A NURSING HOME, NOT SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (FIRST DEPT))

,

HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should not have been dismissed.  Plaintiffs (heath services providers, hereinafter “the PC”) sued defendant health plan (Fidelis) alleging the health plan did not have grounds for terminating the PC’s contract. The court held the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of fair dealing, as well as a cause of action alleging a violation of Public Health Law 4406-d:

Even if a party is not in breach of its express contractual obligations, it may be in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it exercises a contractual right as part of a scheme to deprive the other party of the benefit of its bargain … . Technically complying with the terms of a contract while depriving the plaintiff of the benefit of the bargain may constitute a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing … . Further, “[w]here the contract contemplates the exercise of discretion, this pledge includes a promise not to act arbitrarily or irrationally in exercising that discretion”… .

… The allegations in the complaint that the defendants acted in bad faith by terminating the agreement without justification and by fabricating information to try to justify the termination because the plaintiffs “were determined to be outliers’ with regard to the number and cost of those medical services provided by Plaintiffs to Defendants’ members” were sufficient to state a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract based upon the alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. * * *

… [T]he PC stated a cause of action to recover damages for violation of Public Health Law § 4406-d. The PC is a health care professional that contracted with a health care plan and, therefore, falls within the purview of Public Health Law § 4406-d(2)(a). In addition, the PC is a member of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted. The statute provides for enhanced health care provider protections … . Moreover, a private right of action would be consistent with the legislative scheme, since the statute offers no other practical means of enforcement such that a private right of action is necessary to trigger the protections intended to be afforded to health care providers … . Ahmed Elkoulily, M.D., P.C. v New York State Catholic Healthplan, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06242, Second Dept 8-23-17

CONTRACT LAW (HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT))/COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (CONTRACT LAW, HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined documents sought from a nursing home were not shielded from discovery by the Public Health Law. The documents concerned plaintiff’s decedent’s falls:

Public Health Law § 2805-j requires nursing homes, among other healthcare-related entities, to maintain a program for the identification and prevention of medical malpractice, including the establishment of a quality assurance committee which, among other things, is required to insure that information gathered pursuant to the program is utilized to review and to revise hospital policies and procedures. A New York State Department of Health regulation also requires nursing homes to establish and maintain a quality assessment and assurance program (see 10 NYCRR 415.27). Public Health Law § 2805-m and Education Law § 6527(3) both protect from disclosure documents created “by or at the behest of a quality assurance committee for quality assurance purposes” … . “It is the burden of the entity seeking to invoke the privilege to establish that the documents sought were prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes” … . The party asserting the privilege ” is required at a minimum, to show that it has a review procedure and that the information for which the exemption is claimed was obtained or maintained in accordance with that review procedure”‘… . Records that are duplicated or used by a quality assurance committee are not necessarily privileged … .

Here, in support of its cross motion for a protective order shielding the reports from disclosure, the Nursing Home submitted, among other things, the affidavit of its administrator, a privilege log, and, in camera, the three reports it was able to locate. Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the Nursing Home’s showing was insufficient to demonstrate that the reports were generated by or at the behest of the Nursing Home’s Quality Assurance Committee. Robertson v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 06204, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW,  DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PRIVILEGE, DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))/NURSING HOMES (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, PRIVILEGE,  DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))/QUALITY ASSURANCE (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that documents concerning the investigation into petitioner’s husband’s death at a hospital were discoverable under the Public Health Law as long as the documents did not relate to the quality assurance aspect of the investigation. The court noted the criteria for what is discoverable and what is available under the Freedom of Information Act are not identical:

​

Respondents demonstrated that Public Health Law § 2805-m applied through the affidavit of DOH’s [Department of Health’s] Acting Records Access Officer, who detailed the investigative process and explained how the statement of deficiencies and plan of correction, as well as the ACTS [ASPEN Complaints/Incidents Tracking System] complaint/incident investigation report, incorporated information collected by the hospital for quality assurance purposes. Our in camera review of those documents confirms that her explanation was accurate. The redactions were therefore proper insofar as they related to quality assurance information and, “[h]aving found a specific guarantee of confidentiality, the privileged information and material is not subject to release or disclosure no matter how strong the showing of need or relevancy” … .

That being said, the redacted portions of investigative notes contained in the ACTS complaint/accident investigation report also include a summary of petitioner’s complaint and facts referring to hospital records with no obvious connection to quality assurance goals. This purely factual information did not, contrary to respondents’ assertion, fall within an intra-agency exemption designed “to safeguard internal government consultations and deliberations” … .The sections of the investigative notes labeled “Allegation #1” and “Findings” were improperly redacted and must be disclosed. Another redacted portion of the report restated the text of the letter sent to petitioner alerting her to the outcome of the investigation, and there is no apparent reason for those portions to be withheld. Matter of Pasek v New York State Dept. of Health, 2017 NY Slip Op 04526, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HOSPITAL DEATH, DISCOVERY, UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DISCOVERY,  UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)/FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)/QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION (HOSPITALS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A HOSPITAL DEATH THAT WERE NOT PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER)

, , ,

REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION. 

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a report sought by plaintiffs was not part of a medical or quality assurance review function or participation in a medical malpractice prevention program and therefore was not privileged pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m:

​

…[W]we find that defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing the report’s privilege. Defendants did not submit an affidavit or other information from anyone with first-hand knowledge establishing that a review procedure was in place or that the report was obtained or maintained in accordance with any such review procedure … . Nevertheless, defendants argue that the face and content of the report clearly establish that it is a quality assurance review which is precluded from disclosure. Yet, nothing in the report reflects that the hospital’s Department of Patient Safety and Quality Improvement ever reviewed it … . Further, the report’s conclusory statement that it was prepared for quality assurance purposes and was shielded by the subject statutes is patently insufficient to satisfy the required standard … .

In short, the purpose of the Education Law and Public Health Law discovery exclusions is to encourage a candid peer review of physicians, and thereby improve the quality of medical care and prevent malpractice… , but such protections are not automatically available and do not prevent full disclosure where it should otherwise be provided … . Estate of Savage v Kredentser, 2017 NY Slip Op 03825, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/PRIVILEGE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, REPORT REGARDING CARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT PART OF A MEDICAL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)

, , , ,

DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Kolli’s) credentialing file was privileged and therefore not discoverable. The discovery request for the doctor’s personnel file was too broad; whether any parts of it are privileged must be determined document by document:

​

Concerning the discoverability of Dr. Kolli’s credentialing file, we note that such files “fall squarely within the materials that are made confidential by Education Law § 6527 (3) and article 28 of the Public Health Law”… . That privilege 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 . . . malpractice prevention program’ ” .. . Here, defendants established that the credentialing file was “generated in connection with a quality assurance review function pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) or a malpractice prevention program pursuant to [article 28 of the] Public Health Law” … . We therefore conclude that the credentialing file is privileged and that the court improperly ordered defendants to disclose it… .

Although there is an exception to the privilege, the exception is limited to those statements made by a doctor to his or her employer-hospital concerning the subject matter of a malpractice action and pursuant to the hospital’s quality-control inquiry into the incident underlying that action … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, that exception does not apply here because the injury underlying this action was never the subject of such an inquiry. Jousma v Kolli, 2017 NY Slip Op 03308, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/PRIVILEGE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/CREDENTIALING FILE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/PERSONNEL FILE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)

, , ,

MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the defendants in this personal injury case did not demonstrate a need for plaintiff’s mental health, alcohol abuse, substance abuse and HIV-related medical records. Supreme Court properly issued a protective order to that effect:

Defendants did not meet their burden of showing a “compelling need” for medical records concerning HIV; they failed to submit evidence that would establish a connection between plaintiff’s claimed HIV status and her future enjoyment of life (Public Health Law § 2785[2][a]…). Similarly, defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that “the interests of justice significantly outweigh the need for confidentiality” such to permit discovery of mental health, alcohol abuse, or substance abuse records (Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c][1]; Mental Hygiene Law § 22.05 [b] …).

As the dissent notes, as a rule, “all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” should be fully disclosed (CPLR 3101[a] …). However, plaintiff’s alleged general anxiety and mental anguish from back and leg injuries do not place her entire mental and physical health into contention … . She has not, as argued by the dissent, waived any protection applicable to such records. James v 1620 Westchester Ave. LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01303, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, (MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/MEDICAL RECORDS (MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/HIV (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/MENTAL HEALTH (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/SUBSTANCE ABUSE (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/ALCOHOL ABUSE (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/PRIVILEGE (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)

,

NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined the New York City Department of Health exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority when it adopted regulations mandating influenza vaccinations for children attending certain child care, pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs. The regulations allowed programs to opt-out of the vaccination requirement by paying a fine. The opt-out provision was deemed unrelated to public health, and therefore beyond the Department of Health’s regulatory authority:

… [W]e conclude that by adopting the challenged amendments, the Board of Health “cross[ed] the line into legislative territory” … . [T]he Board of Health did not merely balance costs and benefits, but instead improperly made value judgments by creating a regulatory scheme with exceptions not grounded in promoting public health. … [T]he challenged amendments do not prohibit a child who was not vaccinated against the flu from attending child care or school, but provide only that the facility “may” refuse entry to the unvaccinated child … . Instead, the provider or school can, in effect, opt-out of the vaccination requirement and allow an unvaccinated child to attend, upon payment of a monetary fine … .

This opt-out provision stands in stark contrast to section 2164(7)(a) of the State’s Public Health Law, which, logically, forbids children from remaining in school without proof of the immunizations required under that statute. The challenged amendments, on the other hand, allow a child care provider or school to make an economic choice to pay a fine rather than expel a student and lose a year’s worth of tuition. Creating a policy whereby unvaccinated children are allowed to stay in child care or school flies in the face of respondents’ claim that the challenged amendments are meant to promote the public health by reducing transmission of the flu virus. Not surprisingly, respondents are unable to point to any health-related reason supporting the opt-out provision. Garcia v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2016 NY Slip Op 06559, 1st Dept 10-6-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS)/INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS)

, ,

JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS.

The Second Department determined the Family Court judge was biased against mother who sought to prevent her children from being immunized for religious reasons:

Public Health Law § 2164, which requires that an adequate dose or doses of an immunizing agent against certain diseases be administered to children at various intervals, does not apply to children whose parent or parents hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary to the practices required therein (see Public Health Law § 2164[9]). When a parent seeks to assert a religious objection to immunization under Public Health Law § 2164(9), he or she must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or her opposition to immunization ” stems from genuinely-held religious beliefs'” … . * * *

Here, the record demonstrates that the Family Court had a predetermined outcome of the case in mind during the hearing. In addition to certain comments made by the court regarding the sincerity of the mother’s religious beliefs, the court took an adversarial stance, aggressively cross-examined the mother, continually interrupted her testimony, mocked her beliefs, and generally demonstrated bias. The Family Court’s bias unjustly affected the result of the hearing to the detriment of the mother. Matter of Baby Girl Z. (Yaroslava Z.), 2016 NY Slip Op 04425, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

FAMILY LAW (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)/JUDGES (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)/IMMUNIZATION (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)/RELIGION (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy