Opinion
10129/04.
Decided December 13, 2004.
Romagnolo Cambio, LLP, Staten Island, New York, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Kanterman Taub, White Plains, New York, Attorney for Defendant.
In this personal injury action, plaintiff William Berggren seeks to compel the defendants to comply with certain documentary disclosure demands or, in the alternative, to strike their answer and immediately place the matter on the trial calendar. In response, defendants seek a protective order pursuant to CPLR § 3103.
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages arising from injuries he alleges he sustained on November 20, 2003 when a chair collapsed from under him while sitting in the waiting room of defendant Bayley Seton Hospital's (Bayley Seton) Urgi Center. Plaintiff was present in the Urgi Center that day for a scheduled clinic visit.
In two notices for discovery and inspection dated June 2, 2004, plaintiff sought various discovery items including the following disputed items:
1. Any and all accident reports and/or incident reports, investigation reports regarding the incident of November 20, 2003;
2. any and all accident reports and/or incident reports for one year prior to the date of the incident;
3. Any and all accident and/or incident reports involving collapsed chairs for two years prior to the date of the incident;
4. Any and all inspection reports, repair reports, and/or maintenance reports regarding the chairs located on the defendant's premises.
(See Exhibits "A" and "B" of plaintiff's moving papers).
Defendants objected to these demands claiming that any and all incident reports that were prepared concerning this incident were privileged under Education Law § 6527 and Public Health Law §§ 2805-j, 2805-l and 2805-m and additionally that the requests were "outrageously broad and burdensome". (see Exhibit "D" of plaintiff's moving papers). In defendants' motion for a protective order, they argue that these reports are confidential and were prepared 'in compliance with Public Health Law § 2805 (j)-(m) requiring hospitals to report injuries to a patient other than those related to his illness and Education Law § 6527 that provides that neither any quality assurance review record nor any reports which are required to be filed under Public Health Law § 2805-l shall be subject to disclosure under CPLR article 3".
In essence, defendants' argument rests on characterizing plaintiff as a patient at the time of the November 20, 2003 incident based upon his scheduled clinic appointment. In Marte v. Brooklyn Hospital Center, 9 AD3d 41, 779 N.Y.S.2d 82, the Second Department observed that "the stated legislative objective behind the Public Heath Law requirement that hospitals report incidents affecting patient welfare was 'to assure quality care to all patients in hospitals' by requiring the 'timely reporting of emergencies and other incidents that threaten the safety of the patients or staff in a hospital'". Marte involved a patient who was sexually assaulted by an intruder in her hospital room. In this case, the facts involve a collapsed chair in a waiting room allegedly injuring a person waiting to be seen as an outpatient by the clinic. Under this analysis, anyone with a scheduled outpatient appointment would be unable to obtain reports generated by such incidents as a slip and fall in the hospital's parking lot or a trip on a defective stair or a sticky substance in a corridor.
The Court does not agree that the stated goal of assuring quality care to "all patients in hospitals" can be expanded to shield the hospital from producing relevant disclosure in a personal injury action that does not implicate any of the hospital's functions in providing health care to its patients or "promote the quality of care through self-review without fear of legal reprisal". (Katherine F. v. State of New York, 94 NY2d 200, 205, 702 N.Y.S.2d 231). The fact that the defendants have submitted an affidavit from an administrative assistant in the Risk Management and Insurance department of St. Vincent's Hospital stating that "the report was prepared for the purpose of serving quality assurance and medical review function and is protected from disclosure pursuant to Education law § 6527 and public Law 2805(m)" does not make it so. It was the defendants' burden to demonstrate to the Court that the disclosure sought was privileged and defendants' have not done so. (Marte, 9 AD3d at 46). That portion of plaintiff's motion seeking any and all accident or incident reports generated by the November 20, 2003 accident is granted.
As to those portions of plaintiff's motion seeking incident or accident reports for one year prior to November 20, 2003, incident or accident reports involving collapsed chairs for two years prior to November 20, 2003 and inspection, repair and/or maintenance reports regarding all chairs on defendants' premises, they are denied. While liberal discovery seeks to promote fair and effective resolution of disputes, the test is one of usefulness and reason. (see, e.g., Cilone v. Willson Safety Products, Inc., 229 AD2d 372, 644 N.Y.S.2d 562 (2nd Dept. 1996). The Court finds these particular demands to be overly broad and not geared to produce disclosure that would bear on the controversy at issue here. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking production of any and all incident or accident reports arising from the November 20, 2003 accident is granted and defendants are hereby directed to provide plaintiff with copies of all such reports within ten days of service of a copy of this Order with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that the remainder of plaintiff's motion is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion for a protective order is denied in accordance with this decision.