14 Oct Virginia: Medical Malpractice – a Lawyer’s Pilot
On October 13, 2015, Newport News Circuit Court denied Riverside Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Ruling on Pilot Programs in the wrongful death lawsuit of Joanne T. Rauchfuss, Administratrix of the Estate of George William Rauchfuss, Jr., Deceased v. Roger E. Schultz, M.D., Hampton Roads Urology, Riverside Physician Services, Inc., Riverside Medical Group, Benjamin J. Pettus, M.D., Peninsula Radiological Associates, LTD., Riverside Diagnostic Center – Williamsburg, Riverside Hospital, Inc., Riverside Health System, and Riverside Healthcare Association, Inc., No. CL13-02754V-04. Initially, Riverside Defendants produced only 8 pages responsive to the Court’s medical malpractice ruling for Plaintiff on April 29, 2015, within the time ordered; yet on August 7, 2015, Riverside filed a Privilege Log seeking protection of 75 new documents totaling 278 pages; and only 2 business days before hearing, Riverside filed a Revised Privilege Log seeking protection for 4 more documents totally 12 pages.
At hearing, the Court in the Rauchfuss wrongful death case adopted all of Mr. Waterman’s arguments, and held that the additional documents on the 2 Privilege Logs did not constitute “after-discovered” evidence, despite Riverside having Dr. Gregg Shivers testify in support of the same. Further, because the threshold evidentiary issue was decided in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court refused to reach Riverside’s fall back medical malpractice statutory privilege claims.
By consent, the Rauchfuss Court will redact in camera all “identifying information” of other patients being produced, but denied Riverside’s request for a Protective Order. Also, over Riverside’s objections, the Court as a matter of “first impression” ruled that Root Cause Analysis of third-party patients was discoverable, plus ruled that plaintiff was entitled to responsive pilot program materials that post-dated the delayed diagnosis of cancer finally being communicated to Plaintiff’s deceased.
THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR REQUIRES ALL LAWYERS TO POST THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMERS ON ALL CASE-RELATED POSTS. MR. WATERMAN’S CASE RESULTS AND CLIENT TESTIMONIALS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THEY DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE BY HIM.