Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantlitigationdiscoverynegligencemotionHIPAAsustained
defendantlitigationdiscoverymotionregulationHIPAA

Related Cases

Goodrich v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, Inc., Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 1999 WL 181418
View Case »
Nazar v. Branham, 291 S.W.3d 599
View Case »
U.S. v. Caronia, 576 F.Supp.2d 385
View Case »
Acosta v. Richter, 671 So.2d 149, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S29
View Case »
Clark v. Gibbons, 66 Cal.2d 399, 426 P.2d 525, 58 Cal.Rptr. 125
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Marabello ex rel. Marabello v. State, 40 Misc.3d 237, 964 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 23137

Facts

The claimant, a disabled young adult, was a resident of a group home in Brooklyn, New York, owned and operated by the defendant. On October 18, 2008, he sustained injuries from an assault by the defendant's employees, leading to allegations of negligence. The claimants sought to compel the defendant to produce 125 pages of documents from a 'Quality Assurance' file, which the defendant claimed were privileged under Education Law § 6527 and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29. The defendant maintained that these documents were quality assurance materials and thus exempt from disclosure.

Claimants seek production of 125 pages of documents from a 'Quality Assurance' file that defendant has withheld on the ground that they are privileged pursuant to Education Law § 6527 and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29, and which are described in defendant's privilege log.

Issue

Whether the operator's incident and investigative reports are subject to disclosure under state law and whether they are accessible under HIPAA.

Claimants contend that the New York State statutory privilege against disclosure of quality assurance documents as set forth in Education Law § 6527 and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29 is superseded and preempted by certain provisions of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and its enabling regulations.

Rule

The court applied the quality assurance privilege under Education Law § 6527(3), which excludes records related to medical or quality assurance review functions from discovery in civil litigation.

In pertinent part, the Education Law excludes from discovery in civil litigation 'the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function … including the investigation of an incident reported pursuant to section 29.29 of the mental hygiene law' (Education Law § 6527[3]).

Analysis

The court reviewed the withheld documents and determined that they fell within the protective ambit of Education Law § 6527(3). It found that the claimants' argument that this state law was preempted by HIPAA was not supported, as the documents were not part of the designated record set under HIPAA. The court emphasized that the quality assurance documents were not used to make treatment decisions about the claimant, thus maintaining their privileged status.

The Court has reviewed the documents that defendant has withheld and has submitted for in camera review, as set forth in paragraphs 7 through 46 of the privilege log, and finds that each of those documents falls within the protective ambit of Education Law § 6527(3).

Conclusion

The court denied the claimant's motion to compel the production of documents, affirming that the quality assurance documents were exempt from disclosure under state law and not part of the designated record set under HIPAA.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that claimant's motion number M–82405 is DENIED.

Who won?

The defendant prevailed in the case because the court upheld the quality assurance privilege, determining that the documents sought were not subject to disclosure under state law or HIPAA.

The records that have been withheld by defendant and recited in its privilege log are quality assurance documents that are privileged from disclosure by Education Law § 6527(3).

You must be