Discovery Ordered for Hospital Risk Manager Notes

In this medical malpractice case, a Newport News Circuit Court orders pre-service disclosure of medical charts and notes of the hospital’s risk manager regarding the patient and doctor in the case, including party witness statements and the risk manager’s handwritten notes.

After an in camera review, the court concludes the following documents are not protected work product and, if work product, are discoverable due to plaintiff’s substantial need: 1) a document referenced in the Supplemental Privilege Log as 3(a) undated notes authored by Assistant Risk Manager Wendy Conner created on 12/11/12 and reflecting her mental impressions after separate conversations with defendant doctor and another treating provider on that same date; 2) the medical chart printed contemporaneously with Document 3(a), containing Conner’s handwritten notes authored Dec. 11, 2012, referenced in the Supplemental Privilege Log under the general hearing of number 2; 3) a document referenced in the Supplemental Privilege Log as 3(b), “undated notes” authored by Conner created on 3/12/13 and reflecting her mental impressions after a conversation with defendant on that same date; 4) a document referenced in the Supplemental Privilege Log as 3(c), notes dated 3/18/13 authored by Conner reflecting her mental impressions after conversations with plaintiff of that same date; 5) the medical chart printed contemporaneously with Document No. 3(c), containing handwritten notes of Wendy Connor authored March 18, 2013, referenced in the Supplemental Privilege Log under the general heading of number 2; and 6) the document referenced in the Supplemental Privilege Log as number 2, witness statement – undated statement (postmarked 12/31/12) tilted “Witness Statement about my Care of Mr. George Rauchfuss Jr.” authored by Roger E. Schultz M.D. reflecting his concern that litigation was likely to result.

These documents have been redacted to remove “mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories” pursuant to Va. S. Ct. Rule 4:1(b)(3).

The court rejects that the statement of Dr. Schultz constitutes impermissible “expert testimony” of a party against his will; and denies the oral requests at hearing of Dr. Schultz for further hearing about the court’s redactions of his opinions and mental impressions, and of Riverside for a protective order against using outside this case the redacted materials responsive to subpoena being provided to patient.

The court further finds the undated handwritten notes of Riverside Risk Manager Jody Friend are protected work product and shall not be provided to patient.

Rauchfuss v. Schultz (Pugh) No. CL 1302754P-03, June 5, 2014; Newport News Cir.Ct.; Mary E. Sherwin, Kimberly A. Satterwhite, Avery T. Waterman Jr. for the parties. VLW 014-8-063, 5 pp.