• 25
  • January
    2012

A taped admission from a hospital official that a blood test that could have saved a patient's life was not performed in time due to broken equipment should not be blocked from evidence in a medical malpractice lawsuit under Ohio law, the state Court of Appeals recently ruled. The hospital named as defendant in the lawsuit had tried to block the recording by claiming the conversation with the patient's family was part of the medical peer review process.

Medical peer review is the process by which a board of physicians investigates the treatment of a patient to determine whether the doctor in charge of the case met the required standards of care. To encourage honesty in the process, Ohio law prevents admissions of malpractice made in the course of a peer review to be used as evidence in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The patient at the center of the lawsuit was 76 when he underwent knee surgery at Mercy Regional Medical Center, Lorain, Ohio, hospital formerly known as Community Health Partners Regional Medical Center. Following the operation, the hospital's chief medical officer held an hour-long meeting with the patient's family to discuss his treatment. During the meeting, the doctor admitted that a blood analysis had been delayed due to malfunctioning equipment in the hospital's lab.

That conversation was tape-recorded by the patient's family without the knowledge of the doctor or the hospital. As the patient awaited the blood test results, he suffered a heart attack and died. When the blood test finally came back, it showed the patient had elevated levels of potassium that contributed to the heart attack.

At trial, attorneys for the hospital sought to have the tape recording thrown out, arguing that the conversation was part of the peer review process because the chief medical officer relied on another physician's notes when discussing the case. But the court rejected the motion, as did the appellate court. They noted that the executive repeatedly said on the recording itself that the peer review of the patient's case had not yet begun, and said that the hospital had failed to prove that the peer review privilege applied.

An attorney for Mercy Regional hinted that his client would continue to fight for the peer review privilege in the case.

Source: Outpatient Surgery Magazine, "The Case of the Hospital's Secretly Taped Admission of Error," Jan. 24, 2012