Summary
stating that “the statutes are intended to encourage candid performance reviews without fear of legal reprisal” and granting sealing motion
Summary of this case from Heiden v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp.Opinion
10-13-2016
Suarna MEHULIC, M.D., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK DOWNTOWN HOSPITAL, Defendant–Respondent.
Suarna Mehulic, M.D., appellant pro se. Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York (Robert D. Goldstein of counsel), for respondent.
Suarna Mehulic, M.D., appellant pro se.
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York (Robert D. Goldstein of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RICHTER, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered October 9, 2015, which granted defendant's motion to file certain documents and deposition testimony under seal in connection with its motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion was properly granted since all the exhibits at issue were designated confidential pursuant to the confidentiality agreement executed by the parties, and relate to “performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function” (see Education Law § 6527[3] ; Public Health Law (PHL) § 2805–m ; Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hosp., 113 A.D.3d 567, 569, 979 N.Y.S.2d 320 [1st Dept.2014], lv. dismissed 24 N.Y.3d 976, 995 N.Y.S.2d 699, 20 N.E.3d 644 [2014] ). Contrary to plaintiff's argument, Education Law § 6527(3) and PHL § 2805–m apply to residents as well as to licensed doctors (see Timashpolsky v. State Univ. of N.Y. Health Science Ctr. at Brooklyn, 306 A.D.2d 271, 273, 761 N.Y.S.2d 94 [2d Dept.2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 507, 776 N.Y.S.2d 223, 808 N.E.2d 359 [2004] ; Roth v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 180 A.D.2d 434, 579 N.Y.S.2d 373 [1st Dept.1992] ; see also PHL § 2805–j[1][c] ). Nor is their application limited to malpractice suits, since the statutes are intended to encourage candid performance reviews without fear of legal reprisal (see e.g. Armenia v. Blue Cross of W. N.Y., Community Blue, 190 A.D.2d 1025, 593 N.Y.S.2d 648 [4th Dept.1993] [applying Education Law § 6527[3] in breach of contract action]; Shapiro v. Central Gen. Hosp., 171 A.D.2d 786, 567 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2d Dept.1991] [applying statute in action alleging libel, slander, and interference with business relations] ).
The statutory exception for “statements made by any person ... who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at ... a meeting [when medical or quality assurance review was performed]” (Education Law § 6527[3] ; PHL § 2805–m[2] ) does not apply because only the hospital, and not any of the individual doctors who made statements, is a party to this action.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.