On November 3, 2020, a Massachusetts Federal District Court issued a notable decision on the applicability of the state’s medical peer review privilege in a federal proceeding, determining that the privilege does not apply to documents requested in discovery as part of a qui tam False Claims Act (FCA) case. In United States ex rel. Wollman v. Massachusetts General Hospital, Inc. et al., Case Number 1:15-cv-11890-ADB, the court reviewed the purpose of the peer review privilege and precedent addressing the applicability of state privileges under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and concluded that the privilege should not apply because the “goal of the peer review privilege would not be thwarted if it was not applied” in a case predicated on alleged billing fraud. The court’s decision is instructive for health care providers and whistleblowers in connection with discovery and the applicability of medical peer review privileges to FCA cases.
Continue Reading Massachusetts Federal Court Declines to Apply State Medical Peer Review Privilege in Federal Whistleblower Case
Peer Review
No Right to Union Representation for Non-Mandatory Participation in Peer Review Proceedings – DC Circuit Court Overrules NLRB
By Natale Di Natale & Robinson+Cole's Health Law Group on
Most states, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, have laws that allow hospitals and other health care institutions to establish confidential peer review programs to oversee the quality of care provided by their health care professionals without the threat those proceedings will be subject to discovery. Menorah Medical Center (“Menorah”), in Kansas, had such a program for its nurses. The Peer Review Committee (“Committee”) would investigate allegations of substandard care and, if substantiated, report the breach to the Kansas Board of Nursing.
Continue Reading No Right to Union Representation for Non-Mandatory Participation in Peer Review Proceedings – DC Circuit Court Overrules NLRB