IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAMIEN STANSFIELD, a minor, by :

CHARLENE OBERLY, parent, et al. :

:

Plaintiffs, :

v. : No. 05-cv-00370

:

SUMMIT QUEST ACADEMY, :

VIAQUEST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH :

OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, VIAQUEST :

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC, :

LAWRENCE DEMILIO, M.D., :

Individually and in his official capacity as :

Medical Director of Summit Quest :

Academy, COMMUNITY CARE BEHAVIORAL :

HEALTH ORGANIZATION, SERVICE :

ACCESS MANAGEMENT, INC. and BERKS :

COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH AND :

MENTAL RETARDATION PROGRAM :

:

Defendants. :

:

Green, S.J. October 25, 2006

MEMORANDUM

Presently pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Dkt # 95),

and Defendant’s response thereto. For the reasons articulated below, Plaintiff’s motion will be

granted and denied in part. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

Damien Stansfield (hereinafter “Stansfield”), a mentally retarded minor, and Charlene 

Oberly, his parent and natural guardian, (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), brought this

action against Defendants Summit Quest Academy, ViaQuest Behavioral Health of

Pennsylvania, LLC, ViaQuest Behavioral Healh, LLC, Lawrence Demilio, M.D., Community

Care Behavioral Health Organization, Service Access and Management, Inc., and Berks County

Case 2:05-cv-00370-PBT Document 128 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 4
2

Mental Health and Mental Retardation Program, individually, jointly, and/or severally for

damages pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and

Pennsylvania negligence law. Defendants consist of mental health providers, a government

agency, a medical doctor, and a managed care organization that provided mental health

services to Stansfield.

While staying at Summit Quest Academy, a mental health facility, Stansfield was 

allegedly sexually abused due to the Defendants’ “gross negligence and deliberate indifference”

to his rights. (See Pl.’s Compl.)

On October 21, 2005, Plaintiffs served all Defendants, including Community Care 

Behavioral Health (hereinafter “CCBH”), with Interrogatories and Requests for Production of

Documents. A protective order was sought before the documents were produced due to the

nature of the claims involved, the involvement of minors and the anticipated need of

psychotherapy notes. On April 3, 2006 the protective order was signed by the court. On April

19, 2006 Defendant CCBH produced documents in response to Plaintiffs request, except those

documents they claimed were privileged. See Exhibit A. The Defendants claimed privilege

under the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, 63 P.S. § 425.1 (hereinafter PPRPA). The

documents at issue include CCBH’s Quality Management Reviews, SummitQuest Academy’s

credentialing documents, Hoffman Homes’ credentialing documents, Northwestern Human

Services’ credentialing documents, and Service Access and Management, Inc.’s credentialing

documents. See Exhibit A. Plaintiffs contend that CCBH is obligated to produce the above

described documents because the PPRPA does not apply to Defendant CCBH as it is not a

“professional healthcare provider” as defined by the Act.

II. DISCUSSION:

As a general rule a party is permitted to obtain documents relating to their claim or

Case 2:05-cv-00370-PBT Document 128 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 4
3

defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As long as information sought is reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, that particular information need not be admissible

at trial. Id. However, discovery may be limited by the court if it determines that the discovery

sought is privileged, unreasonably cumulative, can be obtained from a more convenient source,

or when the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs the benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).

The PPRPA states, in relevant part,

[t]he proceedings and record of a review committee shall be held in confidence and shall

not be subjected to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a

professional health care provider arising out of the matters which are subject of

evaluation and review by such committee. . . .

63 P.S. §425.4. The act defines a professional health care provider as “[i]ndividuals or

organizations who are approved, licensed or otherwise regulated to practice or operate in the

health care field. . .” 63 P.S. § 425.2. To qualify as a review committee under the Act the

organization in question must be conducting “peer review,” which is defined as “the procedure

for evaluation by professional health care providers of the quality and efficiency of services

ordered or performed by other professional health care providers. . .” Id. Thus, to be protected

under the PPRPA, the reviewing organization and the organization being reviewed must both

be “professional health care providers.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court defined professional health care provider in McClellan

v. Health Maintenance Organization of Philadelphia, 686 A.2d 801 (Pa. 1996). The court

defined professional health care providers as organizations which are “immediate or direct

health care practitioners, or administrators of medical facilities, be they individuals or

organizations.” Id. at 806. The court went on to conclude that “[b]ecause an IPA model HMO is

neither a direct health care practitioner, nor the administrator of a health care facility...the

legislature did not intend that IPA model HMO’s be embraced by the confidentiality protections

of the PPRPA.” Id. In the present case, the CCHB is similarly an IPA model HMOs and thus is

Case 2:05-cv-00370-PBT Document 128 Filed 10/25/06 Page 3 of 4
4

not a health care provider as defined by McClellan. This court, bound by Pennsylvania

Supreme Court precedent, finds that PPRPA does not apply to the present case.

Plaintiffs’ also seek to discover the credentialing documents of non-party facilities,

specifically CCHB’s credentialing documents of Hoffman Homes, Northwestern Human

Services, and Service Access and Management, Inc.. In its order of September 7, 2006 (Dkt. #

124), the court found that the documents relating to credentialing Summit Quest that were

created by non-party HMOs were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Similarly, the court finds that the CCHB’s credentialing documents of

non-party facilities are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel will be denied as to CCHB’s credentialing

documents of Hoffman Homes, Northwestern Human Services, and Service Access and

Management, Inc..

Finally, the court, as discussed in the order of September 7, 2006, is concerned that the

remaining documents at issue, namely CCHB’s credentialing documents for Defendant Summit

Quest, may contain information about individual children’s mental health treatment, which would

be protected under Pennsylvania’s Mental Health Procedure Act. 50 P.S. § 7101.

Consequently, in order to ensure that no such information is disclosed, and consistent with the

discussions with counsel at the status conference held October 19, 2006, CCHB will be

required to produce the raw number of incidents of inappropriate sexual contact, as defined by

55 Pa. Code § 3800.16 (a)(4), involving minors at Defendant Summit Quest’s facility. An

appropriate order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-00370-PBT Document 128 Filed 10/25/06 Page 4 of 4