Elmer v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Brathwaite v. State

    208 A.D.2d 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 10 times
    In Brathwaite v. State of New York (208 A.D.2d 231), the First Department reviewed the Elmer and Smith cases (supra) and sided with the Third Department's interpretation of the statute in Smith. At issue in Brathwaite were reports by the Commission relating to its investigation into abuses at Willowbrook Developmental Center.

    The only two reported decisions dealing directly with this issue are in conflict. In the earlier one, Elmer v. State of New York ( 179 A.D.2d 1000), which involved an allegation of sexual abuse by an employee, the Fourth Department held that the records of the Commission with respect to its investigation into the various allegations of child and sexual abuse at Western New York Children's Psychiatric Center, specifically, the redacted transcripts of the Commission's interviews of the resident children and unredacted transcripts of staff interviews, were not privileged under Education Law § 6527 (3) because "they did not result from an internal medical or quality assurance review proceeding." (Supra, at 1001.)

  2. Katherine F. v. State

    94 N.Y.2d 200 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that the Education Law protection applies to reports of sexual abuse consistent with its purpose "to promote the quality of care through self-review without fear of legal reprisal."

    Thus, read together, Education Law § 6527(3) and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29 exempt from disclosure incident reports generated in response to allegations of sexual abuse by an employee. Claimant, however, urges us to limit Education Law § 6527(3) to reports that relate to a medical review or quality assurance function (see, e.g., Kristen K. v. Children's Hosp. of Buffalo, 204 A.D.2d 1009; Elmer v. State of New York, 179 A.D.2d 1000), and bear directly on a patient's medical care and treatment. Because allegations of sexual abuse involve non-medical incidents that implicate a hospital's security function, claimant maintains the documents sought are not exempt from disclosure. We disagree.

  3. Katherine F. v. State

    257 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    "The Legislature, in Education Law § 6527 (3) and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29, has created a statutory exception to the rules of discovery provided in CPLR article 31 with respect to, inter alia, a medical or a quality assurance review function" ( Brathwaite v. State of New York, 208 A.D.2d 231, 234 [holding that Education Law § 6527 (3) applied to the reports of the State of New York State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled (the Commission) as well as to reports generated by the investigated facility]). While the Fourth Department has held that the records of the Commission with respect to its investigation into claims of child and sexual abuse at a State psychiatric hospital are not privileged because they "did not result from an internal medical or quality assurance review proceeding" ( Elmer v. State of New York, 179 A.D.2d 1000, 1001), this Court in Brathwaite explicitly disagreed with that narrow reading of the statute. Noting that Education Law § 6527 (3) prohibits disclosure of not only "`records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function' ", but of "`report[s] required by the department of health pursuant to [Public Health Law § 2805-l] * * * including the investigation of an incident reported pursuant to section 29.29 Mental Hyg. of the mental hygiene law'", this Court concluded that the relevent statutes, which, when read together, specifically exempt from disclosure `reports of accidents and injuries affecting patient health and welfare'" ( Brathwaite v. State of New York, 208 A.D.2d 231, 234).

  4. Crea v. Newfane Inter-Community Memorial Hospital

    224 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 15 times

    The contention of defendant that Education Law § 6527 (3) precludes discovery of the information in demands 2 through 11 (files and documents relating to members of the medical staff) is without merit. The confidentiality afforded by Education Law § 6527 (3) "expressly applies only to information obtained in the course of a hospital's review proceedings" and, therefore, a party does not obtain the protection of the statute merely because "the information sought * * * could have been obtained during the course of a hospital review proceeding or an investigation by the Public Health Council * * * [T]he exemption applies only where the information was in fact so obtained" (Bush v. Dolan, 149 A.D.2d 799, 800 [emphasis in original]; see, Elmer v. State of New York, 179 A.D.2d 1000, 1001; Byork v Carmer, 109 A.D.2d 1087, 1088). Defendant failed to meet its burden of showing that the information sought in demands 2 through 11 was obtained in the course of hospital review proceedings.

  5. Loose v. Penfield Volunteer Emergency

    222 A.D.2d 1080 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    That section requires ambulance services and advanced life support first response services to establish quality improvement committees by 1997, and protects the records and actions of those committees from disclosure. We agree with the court that the record does not establish that the documents in question were generated in connection with a quality improvement program required by the statute (see generally, Elmer v State of New York, 179 A.D.2d 1000, 1001). We further conclude, however, that the court erred in granting plaintiff's motion insofar as it sought discovery of the reports prepared by employees of Penfield Volunteer Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc. Those reports were materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, and thus were protected from disclosure under CPLR 3101 (d) (2).

  6. Strickland v. State

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 34195 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2013)

    Included in such reports are any allegations of 'violent behavior exhibited by either patients or employees' (Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29 [1] [ii]). . . ."Claimant, however, urges us to limit Education Law § 6527 (3) to reports that relate to a medical review or quality assurance function (see, e.g., Matter of Kristen K. v Children's Hosp., 204 AD2d 1009; Elmer v State of New York, 179 AD2d 1000), and bear directly on a patient's medical care and treatment Because allegations of . . . abuse involve non-medical incidents that implicate a hospital's security function, claimant maintains the documents sought are not exempt from disclosure. We disagree.

  7. Strickland v. State

    # 2013-041-016 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 27, 2013)

    Included in such reports are any allegations of 'violent behavior exhibited by either patients or employees' (Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29 [1] [ii]). . . . "Claimant, however, urges us to limit Education Law § 6527 (3) to reports that relate to a medical review or quality assurance function (see, e.g., Matter of Kristen K. v Children's Hosp., 204 AD2d 1009; Elmer v State of New York, 179 AD2d 1000), and bear directly on a patient's medical care and treatment. Because allegations of . . . abuse involve non-medical incidents that implicate a hospital's security function, claimant maintains the documents sought are not exempt from disclosure.

  8. Hale v. ODD FELLOW FACILITY

    188 Misc. 2d 498 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001)

    Education Law § 6527 (3) does not provide a cloak of confidentiality for the minutes of the meeting of May 27, 1999. The purpose of the statute is to assure the confidentiality of internal medical and quality review proceedings, not a meeting with representatives of a construction contractor (see, Elmer v State of New York, 179 AD2d 1000; Byork v Carmer, 109 AD2d 1087). By inviting representatives of the contractor, which is a codefendant in this action, to meet with members of the quality assurance committee, defendants waived any right to assert a claim of privilege under either section 6527 (3) or 42 USC § 1395i-3 (b) (1) (B) for the record of that meeting in disclosure proceedings in this action.

  9. Hale v. Odd Fellow & Rebekah Health Care Facility

    188 Misc. 2d 498 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001)   Cited 4 times

    Education Law § 6527(3) does not provide a cloak of confidentiality for the minutes of the meeting of May 27, 1999. The purpose of the statute is to assure the confidentiality of internal medical and quality review proceedings, not a meeting with representatives of a construction contractor (see, Elmer v. State of New York, 179 A.D.2d 1000; Byork v. Carmer, 109 A.D.2d 1087). By inviting representatives of the contractor, which is a codefendant in this action, to meet with members of the quality assurance committee, defendants waived any right to assert a claim of privilege under either section 6527(3) or 42 U.S.C. § 1395i-3(b)(1)(B) for the record of that meeting in disclosure proceedings in this action.

  10. Finnegan v. State

    179 Misc. 2d 694 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    In Matter of Kristen K. v. Children's Hosp. ( 204 A.D.2d 1009, lv denied 1994 WL 531090 [4th Dept, Sept. 30, 1994]), the Fourth Department held that the defendant hospital's investigation into the sexual assault of a minor who was a patient of the hospital at the time of the assault did not fall within the privilege provided by Education Law § 6527 (3) "because that section provides confidentiality for information relative to medical review functions" (supra, at 1010 [emphasis supplied]). Similarly, that Court held in Elmer v. State of New York ( 179 A.D.2d 1000) that transcripts of interviews conducted by the Commission as part of an investigation into alleged child abuse and neglect at Western New York Children's Psychiatric Center were "not privileged pursuant to section 6527 (3) of the Education Law because they did not result from an internal medical or quality assurance review proceeding" (supra, at 1001 [emphasis supplied]).