In Leadbitter v. Keystone Anesthesia Consultants (2020 Pa. Super. LEXIS 116 (Feb. 12, 2020)), the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently urged the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to revisit whether, and to what extent, physician credentialing information is protected by the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act (“PRPA”), 63 P.S. 425.1, et seq.  In Leadbitter, the Superior Court affirmed a trial court order compelling a hospital to produce a defendant/physician’s unredacted credentialing file.

The credentialing file in question was that of a private practice physician who applied for an appointment to the medical staff and for clinical privileges at a hospital. After the hospital’s credentialing committee reviewed numerous documents, including professional opinions relating to the physician’s competence, evaluations of the physician’s performance and prepared by other physicians, as well as National Practitioner DataBank (“NPDB”) responses, the hospital recommended that he be granted clinical privileges.

Thereafter, the physician was involved in a medical malpractice action and the plaintiffs requested a copy of his “complete credentialing and/or privileging file.” The hospital sought protection under the Peer Review Protection Act (“PRPA”), and the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (“HQIA”) but the trial court and the Superior Court ordered the hospital to turn the records over.

The Superior Court relied on two critical decisions which it noted it was bound to follow: (i) the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision in Reginelli v. Boggs, 181 A.3d 293 (Pa. 2018) (which held that the personnel files of a hospital’s contractor were not entitled to peer review privilege) and the Superior Court’s decision in Estate of Krappa v. Lyons, 2019 Pa. Super. 168 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019) (which held that peer review privilege does not protect files of a hospital’s own credentialing committee).

However, the Superior Court clearly was troubled by the outcome — in particular, it noted that it was troubled by the fact that prior precedent required it to focus on the type of organization reviewing the professional evaluations, rather than the nature of the documents themselves. As a result, the Superior Court urged the Supreme Court to accept the hospital’s appeal in Leadbitter to clarify the limits prior precedent imposed on the scope of Peer Review Protection Act.

Hospitals and healthcare professionals must be familiar with the courts’ analyses in Reginelli, Estate of Krappa and now Leadbitter to understand of how the PRPA applies to discovery requests. Hospitals and healthcare professionals should stay tuned to see if the Supreme Court grants allowance of appeal in Leadbitter and, if so, whether it modifies its stance on the scope of PRPA protections.

At Lamb McErlane PC Maureen M. McBride concentrates her practice on commercial litigation and appellate law. Maureen provides counseling and advice to a wide array of corporate clients, hospitals and individuals. She is a partner and co-chair of Lamb McErlane’s Appellate Department, a member of the Litigation Department and the Firm’s Executive Committee. mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com. 610.701.4410.