Virginia: Medical Malpractice – a Lawyer’s Records

Virginia: Medical Malpractice – a Lawyer’s Records

On June 23, 2014, in Mr. Waterman’s patient fall lawsuit of Nancy Peck v. Riverside Hospital, Inc., et al., No. CL1400873V-04, Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia, heard Patient’s Motion to Enforce Va. Code §8.01-413(C) Subpoena Duces Tecum & HIPAA/HITECH and Riverside’s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order. The Court granted Patient’s Motion to Enforce, denied Riverside’s Motion to Quash, and granted Riverside’s Motion for Protective Order.

Specifically, the Peck patient fall ruling denied Riverside’s claim of privilege and ordered Riverside to provide within 10 days without any redaction its: (1) Risk Management Worksheet a/k/a Quality Care Control Report; (2) Root Cause Analysis Report; (3) Apparent Cause Analysis Report; and (4) Causes and Coding Worksheets. Riverside failed to tender the Court its documents in question and to introduce any evidence in support of its privilege claim under Va. Code §8.01-581.17, and the Court was not persuaded Riverside’s documents were those of a protected entity under Va. Code §8.01-581.17.

Also, the Peck medical malpractice decision ordered Riverside to provide the patient within 21 days its “read only” electronic file supporting and documenting the substance of its 18-page “audit trail” entitled Activity by Medical Record previously provided by Riverside. In particular, the “read only” electronic file is the include the substance of all text edits, pages replaced, pages inserted, documents split, documents inserted, documents merged, and documents deleted.

The Protective Order in Peck limits the patient fall victim’s dissemination of her medical record, “read only” electronic file, and 4 documents at issue. Riverside was represented by Hancock Daniel Johnson & Nagle through Heather Zaug, Esq. on brief and Rich Nagle, Esq. 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.