Brugaletta v. Garcia, 2018 N.J. Lexis 980 (Decided July 25, 2018)

NJ Supreme Court refines obligations under Patient Safety Act; hospitals entitled to rely on absolute privilege under Act for docs created pursuant to the Act, but must provide narrative summaries of relevant factual information when asked.

The plaintiff appealed the Appellate Division’s decision which reversed the trial court’s order that the plaintiff was entitled to redacted hospital documents later found to be reports that were the product of “self critical analysis” conducted pursuant to the PSA. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division decision that a trial judge plays no role in determining whether or not a Serious Preventable Adverse Event (SPAE) occurred or whether a hospital is compelled to report the SPAE to the Department of Health in order to seek protection of the documents generated under the PSA. The court found that the legislature inserted no role for a trial court to play in reviewing the SPAE determination made by a facility. The court also affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the trial court that the plaintiff was entitled to a redacted version of the hospital’s reports as they fell under the PSA’s self critical analysis privilege, which prevented its disclosure.

The Supreme Court explained that the privileges provided by the PSA do not bar discovery or admission into evidence of information otherwise discoverable or admissible. In other words, the court noted that a party may still nonetheless be entitled to discovery of purely factual information, but not deliberative material and documents. The trial court attempted to solve this dilemma by compelling production of the redacted hospital documents. However, the Supreme Court rejected this solution and instead opted to fashion a remedy that results in creating another obligation for the hospital. Specifically, the court ruled that the trial court should have “used its common law power….to order defendants to provide plaintiff a narrative in similar form to the one they presented the court.” This would have balanced the litigation interests of the parties while steering the plaintiff to information that would have required the defendants to identify an adverse incident. In so ruling, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to be informed of an adverse incident, and that by ordering a narrative to accompany records already produced, the defendants would then be found in compliance with discovery obligations by providing a complete response to the disputed interrogatory.

 

 

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2018

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.