Peer review litigation in Pennsylvania has been quiet since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down the Leadbitter decision in 2021.[1] In Leadbitter, the Court held that regardless of label, a committee that conducts peer review enjoys the protections of the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act (PRPA), and its proceedings and documents generated are privileged. In doing so, the Court found that a hospital’s credentialing committee is entitled to those protections if they are conducting peer review.
However, recently, Judge Jennifer P. Wilson of United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania was faced with the question of whether a Power Point presentation from a hospital’s Grand Rounds conference is protected under the PRPA.[2] Grand Rounds conferences involve the discussion of one or more interesting or noteworthy patients or cases. The Plaintiff in that case argued that Grand Rounds are educational in nature and are not done to critique physician performance. Plaintiff also argued that Grand Rounds are not limited to medical staff and are not “peer review organizations, meetings, or functions within the meaning of the PRPA….” Lastly, Plaintiff argued that a Power Point presentation isn’t a “record’ or “proceeding,” because it was created prior to the conference and not at the direction of a peer review committee.
Judge Wilson conducted an in camera review of the Power Point presentation and found that the Grand Rounds conference was conducting peer review. The Court found the affidavit of the department chair to be persuasive where he stated that the conference does evaluate patient care and discusses future improvements. Further, Judge Wilson’s review of the presentation aligned with the affidavit, including sections on “what to do,” and “takeaways.” These were found to be consistent with the aims of the PRPA, including “improving health care quality, reducing morbidity and mortality, and lowering costs.”
Comment: Leadbitter was an important case for peer review in Pennsylvania. However, there has been relatively little in the way of peer review decisions since that time. Subsequent application of such an important holding to further clarify or illustrate its impact can be equally important. Judge Wilson’s clear application of Leadbitter does so by showing that any hospital committee conducting peer review is entitled to protection under the PRPA, even where it has other purposes.
[1] Leadbitter v. Keystone Anesthesia Consultants, Ltd., 667 Pa. 704, 256 A.3d 1164, 2021 Pa. LEXIS 3398, 2021 WL 3628734
[2] Houwelingen v. Milton S. Hershey Med. Ctr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149286, 2024 WL 3891110
[View source.]
