Last month, in Mertis v. Oh, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a physician subpoenaed for deposition in a malpractice case does not have unfettered discretion in choosing his or her attorney. Rather, the Supreme...more
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order and opinion on August 17 holding that medical peer review documents do not need to be generated by a “peer review committee” to be protected under the Pennsylvania Peer Review...more
Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced it would address whether the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act (PRPA or Act) protects documents in hospital credentialing files. This decision could significantly...more
In a further erosion of the peer review privilege, the Superior Court in, Leadbitter v. Keystone Anesthesia Consultants, Ltd., affirmed a discovery order compelling the production of the complete, un-redacted credentialing...more
A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Reginelli v. Boggs, 0 WAP 2016, 21 WAP 2016, 23 WAP 2016 (Pa. Mar. 27, 2018), has been raising a number of questions regarding the strength of a state peer review privilege based...more
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled, on March 27, 2018, in Regenelli v. Boggs, Monogahela Valley Hospital and UPMC/ERMI that physician performance reviews of an ER physician, who was provided by ERMI to Mon Valley Hospital,...more
It has been nearly four months since the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued its opinion in the case of Shinal v. Toms. In its opinion, the Court considered the issue of informed consent under Pennsylvania law and issued a...more
Patients have come to expect that they will be actively involved in making decisions about their health care. Informed consent aids patient involvement and provides a process whereby a health care provider discusses a...more
A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision will have a major impact on how physicians across the Commonwealth obtain informed consent from their patients. In Shinal v. Toms, 2017 WL 2655387 (Pa. June 20, 2017), the 4-3...more
In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, overturning a Superior Court’s order, ruled that a jury could not consider information provided by the physician’s qualified staff in deciding whether a physician obtained...more