The dispute centers on two specific documents: an incident report dated January 7, 2016 (bates-labeled FBH000205–FBH000206) and another dated September 21, 2018 (bates-labeled FBH000207–FBH000208).
Defendant argued the documents were protected as patient safety work product (PSWP) from discovery. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant failed to qualify for the statutory protection.
The court identified three elements required under 42 U.S.C. § 299b-21(7)(A) for information to constitute privileged PSWP: the information must be assembled or developed by a provider for reporting to a patient safety organization (PSO); it must actually be reported to that PSO; and it must be information that could result in improved patient safety, health care quality, or health care outcomes.
Defendant submitted an affidavit from its Director of Risk Management and Regulatory Compliance stating the reports were created within the hospital's patient safety evaluation system (PSES) and reported to a PSO with the goal of improving outcomes.
Plaintiffs did not contest that Defendant had adequate procedures or policies in place at the time of the incidents. Instead, they argued the affidavit was self-serving and conclusory, lacking objective proof that the specific reports complied with PSQIA.
The court agreed with Plaintiffs, noting Defendant offered no evidence beyond restating statutory language in the affidavit.
Even if the affidavit was sufficient for the first two elements, the court found Defendant failed to comply with the third statutory requirement. Following an in camera review, the court determined the condition that the information could result in improved patient safety or health care outcomes was not satisfied.
The court emphasized that evidentiary privileges are interpreted narrowly because they impede the search for truth.
Because Defendant did not carry its burden of demonstrating the reports fell within PSQIA's privilege, the court granted the motion for reconsideration.