Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Search

  • MADELINE KEYWORTH VS. CAREONE AT MADISON AVENUE, ET AL. (L-2267-18 AND L-0948-21, MORRIS AND BERGEN COUNTIES AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3751-21/A-0722-22 Appellate June 15, 2023 Summary A-3751-21/A-0722-22          These consolidated cases require us to consider the scope of the statutory self-critical analysis privilege and determine whether materials developed as part of self-critical analysis conducted pursuant to a facility's patient safety plan are subject to discovery, disclosure, and admissible at trial.  This analysis hinges upon whether the facilities involved in these cases met the requirements imposed by the Patient Safety Act (PSA), N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.23 to -12.25, and related regulations, rendering the materials sought by plaintiffs privileged and protected from disclosure. Defendants argue the trial court erred by ruling incident/investigation reports concerning separate incidents resulting in injuries at two facilities are not privileged under the PSA and therefore discoverable.  The court reversed the trial court's orders.  Surveying the case law interpreting the PSA and regulations, the court notes that the PSA was designed to reduce medical errors by promoting internal self-reporting and self-critical analysis related to adverse events and near misses by health care facilities.  N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.25 renders the entire self-critical-analysis process privileged, shielding a health care facility's deliberations and determinations from discovery or admission into evidence.  N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.25(g), does not condition the privilege on the finding of a Serious Preventable Adverse Event (SPAE).  That an event is not reportable does not abrogate the self-critical-analysis privilege.  The privilege unconditionally protects the process of self-critical analysis, the results of the analysis, and the resulting reports developed by a facility in its compliance with the PSA.  A court may not order the release of documents prepared during the process of self-critical analysis.  N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.25(c) requires health care facilities to report every SPAE that occurs in that facility to the Department of Health (DOH).  The documents, materials and information submitted to the DOH pursuant to this requirement are absolutely privileged and shall not be "subject to discovery or admissible as evidence or otherwise disclosed in any civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding."  N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.25(f).  The statute provides no rationale or standard for parsing the contents of the documents, allowing for some portions to be privileged and others not privileged.  However, when information sought to be protected from disclosure is not submitted to the DOH, the path to a privilege is different.  N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.25(g) establishes the self-critical analysis privilege for internal documents that are the product of an 'investigative process that may or may not lead to reporting to the DOH.  Any documents, materials, or information developed by a health care facility as part of a process of self-critical analysis conducted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.25(b) is not subject to discovery, disclosure or admissible as evidence in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.  Accordingly, if documents are submitted to the DOH pursuant to N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.25(f) or meet the requirements of N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.25(g), they are absolutely privileged and not subject to discovery.  Under either of those circumstances, a trial court does not engage in a redaction process and release the redacted document.  The entire document is statutorily protected from disclosure.  At the same time, the PSA expressly preserves plaintiffs' right to discover facts through conventional means of discovery if obtained from any source or context other than those specified in the PSA.  Moreover, documents created outside the self-critical analysis process are subject to discovery.  In each case, plaintiffs are free to engage in discovery of facts from non-privileged sources.  Additionally, if defendants produced voluminous medical records in response to a discovery request in either case, plaintiff may request, and the court may order, that defendants provide a "narrative to steer them to information contained in thousands of pages of medical records" in accordance with Brugaletta v. Garcia , 234 N.J. 225, 252 (2018). Close
  • Kathleen DiFiore v. Tomo Pezic; Dora Deleon v. The Achilles Foot and Ankle Group; Jorge Remache-Robalino v. Nader Boulos, M.D. (087091) (Essex & Hudson County & Statewide) A-58/59/60-21 Supreme June 15, 2023 Oral Argument A-58/59/60-21 A-58/59/60-21 Part-1 Audio for A-58/59/60-21 Part-1 A-58/59/60-21 Part-2 Audio for A-58/59/60-21 Part-2 Close Summary A-58/59/60-21 The Court affirms the Appellate Division’s core holding that trial courts determine on a case-by-case basis what conditions, if any, to place on a DME -- including who may attend and whether it may be recorded -- with no absolute prohibitions or entitlements. The Court further affirms that video recording, in addition to audio recording, should be included in the range of options; that the parties shall enter into a protective order when a defense expert is concerned about the disclosure of proprietary information; that when third-party observation is permitted, the trial court shall impose reasonable conditions to prevent any disruption of or interference with the exam; and that, if a foreign or sign language interpreter is needed, a neutral interpreter shall be selected by the parties or, failing agreement, by the court. Close
  • SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA VS. SCOTT SINGER, ET AL. (L-0464-16, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2165-20 Appellate June 19, 2023
  • KEVIN SABATINI VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD) A-2581-20 Appellate June 19, 2023
  • JEANNE CARTER VS. DANIEL HALPERN (FM-11-0472-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0158-21 Appellate June 19, 2023
  • PHILLIP IZZO VS. OFFICE OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS (DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS) A-0462-21 Appellate June 19, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WAHIDUDDI KIMBROUGH (18-05-1322, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0777-21 Appellate June 19, 2023
  • J.G. VS. D.G. (FM-14-1415-14, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1755-21 Appellate June 19, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHERYL VENTURINI (21-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2071-21 Appellate June 19, 2023
  • A.K.G. VS. M.J.S. (FV-11-0906-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2838-21 Appellate June 19, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. B.T.B. (12-10-0810, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2465-21 Appellate June 19, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDREW CANNING (21-10-0683, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1777-22 Appellate June 19, 2023
  • KIMBERLY A. KOPACZ VS. ANGELO C. PLUCHINO, ET AL. (L-2236-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1219-21 Appellate June 20, 2023
  • CRYSTAL MONTALVO VS. IMPERIAL DADE, ET AL. (L-2440-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1687-21 Appellate June 20, 2023
  • J.C. VS. J.B. (FM-04-0179-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1998-21 Appellate June 20, 2023
  • 1000 HARBOR BOULEVARD, LLC, ETC. VS. TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) A-2186-21 Appellate June 20, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EDGAR A. MEJIA (15-03-0525, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2388-21 Appellate June 20, 2023
  • S.N. VS. M.G.R. (FV-12-1296-22, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2491-21 Appellate June 20, 2023
  • IN THE MATTER OF P.L. (0234-XTR-2021-000001, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2813-21 Appellate June 20, 2023
  • L.M.J. VS. D.V.O. (FV-16-1644-22, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2876-21 Appellate June 20, 2023