Opinion ID: 2806660
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Medical Records Consultant; or

Text: f. Any other health or medical consultant brought in or employed to evaluate or study the adequacy of care. Further this request includes any minutes from all meetings conducted by any of the above consultants or employees during the aforementioned time frame. 4 12, 2014, directing ManorCare to produce the documents requested. The order provided that the identity of residents at Heartland of Charleston, other than the decedent, be redacted from the material. The order stated further: If Defendants [ManorCare, etc.] are going to attempt to assert a quality assurance privilege to any documents responsive to this ordered production, they must file a privilege log identifying when said document was created, who created said document by name and position in the facility, the title of the document, and a general description of the type of information contained in the document for the Court’s review.3 Soon after, Hanna filed a motion to compel compliance with the May 12, 2014, order. In a separate letter to ManorCare, Hanna indicated that ManorCare was on notice of the Center Visit Summaries because ManorCare had been present during the discovery process in an unrelated action where information about the Summaries was obtained. The unrelated action was styled McClanahan v. HCR ManorCare, LLC, et al., no. 13­ C-1705 (Kanawha County). ManorCare asserts that it was not aware of the Center Visit Summaries until the deposition, in McClanahan, of Debra Blair on June 11, 2014. Blair was 3 The order also directed ManorCare to complete the production of documents within thirty days “from the date of the hearing of this matter.” Since the hearing on Hanna’s motion to compel was conducted on March 26, 2014, and the order was not entered until May 12, 2014, it was not possible for ManorCare to comply with the time constraints imposed by the circuit court. Hanna asserts, however, that entry of the May 12, 2014, ruling was delayed because ManorCare failed to respond to the proposed order sent to ManorCare by Hanna. 5 a nurse consultant who testified that she made reports after visiting ManorCare facilities in West Virginia. ManorCare states that the reports were made by nurse consultants, such as Blair, exclusively for ManorCare’s Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program. According to ManorCare, the Summaries in the current matter were only given to individuals permitted to be part of Heartland of Charleston’s quality assurance, or peer review, committee as defined by its Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program. Thus, in August 2014, ManorCare filed a privilege log in the circuit court concerning the Center Visit Summaries pertaining to the decedent’s residency at Heartland. ManorCare again asserted that the Summaries were protected from discovery pursuant to the statutory peer review privilege. On September 4, 2014, the circuit court conducted a hearing on Hanna’s motion to compel compliance with the May 12, 2014, order. Counsel for ManorCare argued that, in view of the filing of the privilege log, the next step would be for the circuit court to grant ManorCare an extension of time to demonstrate, by affidavit or otherwise, that ManorCare had a quality assurance committee. As stated by Hanna, however, ManorCare had been arguing peer review privilege since its original discovery response in September 2013, and yet, a year later at the September 4, 2014, hearing, ManorCare was “not prepared to establish 6 the quality assurance privilege they claimed.” On November 7, 2014, the circuit court granted Hanna’s motion to compel compliance with the May 12, 2014, order and directed ManorCare to produce the Center Visit Summaries identified in the privilege log. The November 7, 2014, order stated that ManorCare “failed to put forth any evidence that a quality assurance committee existed or that the documents at issue were submitted to any such quality assurance committee.”4 ManorCare filed a motion to alter or amend the November 7, 2014, order. ManorCare alleged that the circuit court committed error by failing to conduct an in camera proceeding to determine the status of each document claimed to be privileged. The circuit court, however, entered an order on February 2, 2015, denying the motion. The order stated that the evidence before this Court at the September 4, 2014 hearing was that during Sharon Hanna’s residency at Heartland of Charleston there were Center Visit Summaries conducted by nurses that were not part of the quality assurance committee. Additionally, these nurses not only provided the Center Visit Summaries to staff at Heartland of Charleston, but also to a supervisor. While Defendants claim to have a quality assurance committee they have not offered any evidence of by-laws or any other support to the Court to establish that such committee is a “review organization” as defined in W.Va. Code, 30-3C-1.  4 ManorCare acknowledged at the September 4, 2014, hearing that it initially argued quality assurance, or peer review, privilege over documents it was not sure existed. The circuit court commented that it was problematic how a party can assert and argue that a document is protected by such a privilege “when they have never seen it nor do they even believe that it exists.” 7