Virginia: Medical Malpractice – a Lawyer’s Credentialing

Virginia: Medical Malpractice – a Lawyer’s Credentialing

On February 25, 2015, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery against All Defendants was heard in Mr. Waterman’s medical malpractice case for alleged wrongful death, 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., Case No. CL1302754V-04 (DP), in Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia. Judge Pugh denied the Motions for Protective Order of all Defendants.

The Court in Rauchfuss sustained Plaintiff’s evidentiary Objection to it considering the Declaration of Dr. Dennie Bartol and the Affidavit of Dr. Christopher Stolle. The Court also agreed to supplemental hearing at a mutually convenient time for Dr. Christopher Stolle of Riverside to testify ore tenus subject to cross-examination, since he is a member of Virginia’s General Assembly and has communicated his request to be heard by the Court.

Nonetheless, the Court in Rauchfuss ordered that Defendants immediately turn over to it for in camera review and redaction all of the following responsive materials in their “privilege logs”:

  1. (2006/2007) Physician Employment Agreement of Dr. Schultz with Riverside;
  2. (2010) Employment Agreement of Dr. Pettus with Peninsula Radiology Associates [“PRA”];
  3. (2011) Radiology Services Agreement of PRA with Riverside; and
  4. (unspecified) “Credentialing Files” of Riverside for Dr. Pettus and Dr. Schultz.

The Court further ordered that within 1 week of hearing, or by March 4, 2015, that Defendants’ respective counsel each shall deliver to the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel a 1-page letter itemizing any portions of their respective Agreements and “credentialing files” that they contend should be redacted (other than re Riverside policies, found to be discoverable); and that within 2 weeks of hearing, or by March 11, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel shall deliver to the Court and Defendants’ counsel his letter confirming which of those portions he is not seeking (in addition to Plaintiff’s discovery requests not seeking insurance, financial, and internal discipline material as stated at hearing).

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.