Adams v Bassett Healthcare Network
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
A healthcare employee suing under Labor Law §§ 740 and 741 [New York whistleblower statutes prohibiting retaliation for reporting unsafe workplace practices and patient-care concerns] sought discovery of internal hospital incident reports that the hospital claimed were privileged quality-assurance and patient-safety materials.
Supreme Court denied the employee's motion to compel and granted the hospital a protective order after in camera review, holding that two RL6 reports were shielded from disclosure under Education Law § 6527 (3) [exempts from disclosure records related to medical review and quality assurance functions, participation in a medical malpractice prevention program, and certain Department of Health reports] and the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (PSQIA) (42 USC § 299b-21 et seq.) [federal statute protecting certain patient safety work product].
The Appellate Division reversed the portions of the order that denied production of the two RL6 reports and that granted the hospital a protective order as to those reports.
The hospital failed to meet its burden to prove that the specific RL6 reports were actually created for, submitted to, or reviewed in a protected medical review or peer review process, and it also failed to show that the reports were actually reported to and reviewed by a patient safety organization (PSO). Generic affidavits, boilerplate confidentiality labels, and use of an electronic reporting system were not enough.
Background
Richard C. Adams worked for Bassett Healthcare Network as a nursing assistant and technician in a secure unit for behavioral health and psychiatric patients. He sued for wrongful termination and retaliation, alleging that after he reported unsafe practices and conditions he was fired in violation of Labor Law §§ 740 and 741. In discovery, he requested copies of his own statements to the hospital, including a June 2022 safety report submitted through the hospital's RL6 electronic reporting system, as well as related communications and responses to prior complaints. Bassett identified two RL6 reports on its privilege log: one authored by Adams in June 2022 and another written by a hospital security employee in July 2022 after the incident leading to Adams's termination. Bassett refused production, claiming privilege under Education Law § 6527 (3) and PSQIA.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, after reviewing the reports in camera, denied Adams's motion to compel under CPLR 3124 [procedure to compel disclosure] and granted Bassett's cross-motion for a protective order. The court accepted Bassett's claim that both RL6 reports were protected from disclosure under the cited state and federal privileges.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court erred. As to Education Law § 6527 (3), the court found Bassett's proof insufficient because its administrator described RL6 as a broad incident-reporting tool used for many kinds of events, including nonprivileged matters, and did not state that these specific reports were created for or submitted to any medical review, quality-assurance, or peer review process. Boilerplate statements on the forms did not establish privilege, and Bassett conceded that the reports were not submitted to a quality-assurance or peer review committee. As to PSQIA, the court assumed without deciding that the statute could apply, but held that Bassett still failed to show that these reports were patient safety work product because nothing in the record demonstrated that they were actually reported to and reviewed by a patient safety organization. The order was modified to compel production of the RL6 reports and deny the protective order as to them.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that hospitals and healthcare providers bear the burden of proving privilege document by document. Internal incident reports are not automatically shielded merely because they are generated through a hospital reporting platform or stamped as confidential quality-assurance material. To invoke Education Law § 6527 (3), the proponent must show that the particular document was prepared for and actually used in a protected medical review function. To invoke PSQIA, the proponent must show that the material was assembled for reporting to a patient safety organization and was in fact reported to such an organization.
In New York healthcare litigation, a provider cannot block discovery of incident reports with generalized affidavits or form labels alone; it must prove that the specific documents were actually part of a protected review process or actually reported to a patient safety organization.