United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER AND OPINION [RE: MOTION AT DOCKET 53]
JOHN
W. SEDWICK SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I.
MOTION PRESENTED
At
docket 53 plaintiff Estate of Joseph Murphy
(“Plaintiff”) asks the court to conduct an in
camera review of certain personnel and disciplinary
records of defendant Jill Robinson (“Robinson”).
Robinson responded at docket 68. Plaintiff replies at docket
74. Oral argument was not requested and would not be of
assistance to the court.
II.
BACKGROUND
Joseph
Murphy (“Murphy”) was sent to the Lemon Creek
Correctional Center (“Lemon Creek”) from Bartlett
Regional Hospital on August 13, 2015, to be temporarily
detained for alcohol detoxification and suicide monitoring
pursuant to AS 47.37.170. Early the next morning he
complained to Robinson, a nurse at Lemon Creek, of chest
pains and requested his medication. Plaintiff alleges that
Robinson did not obtain Murphy's medication and did not
follow-up or monitor his condition. Plaintiff alleges that
Murphy made two subsequent requests for medication to other
Lemon Creek staff members but his requests went unheeded.
According to Plaintiff, a Lemon Creek video shows Murphy
collapsing in his cell twenty-six minutes after he first
requested his medications from Robinson. He was declared dead
about an hour later, after resuscitation efforts failed.
III.
DISCUSSION
As part
of Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against
Robinson, Plaintiff served various requests for production,
including the following:
1) RFP No.1 - production of Robinson's state employee
personnel file;
2) RFP No. 4 - production of any written or recorded
statements or communications regarding Joseph Murphy, the
death of Joseph Murphy, investigations into the death of
Joseph Murphy, or the Department of Corrections's
November 13, 2015 Administrative Review by Dean Williams and
Joe Hanlon;
3) RFP No. 7 - production of any writing received or sent by
Robinson in which she discusses Joseph Murphy and/or her care
and treatment of him.
Robinson
objected to the three requests based on her right to privacy
under AS 39.25.080 and Article I § 22 of the Alaska
Constitution and based on medical peer review privilege.
After the court's issuance of an order at docket 48
regarding the applicability of AS 39.25.080 to Defendant
Corcoran's personnel file, Robinson narrowed the basis of
her objection to medical peer review privilege, set forth at
AS 18.23.030.
The
medical peer review privilege statute protects the
proceedings of and records generated by a medical peer review
organization and protects the investigative process used by
the organization.[1] The statute states as follows:
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, all data and
information acquired by a review organization in the exercise
of its duties and functions shall be held in confidence and
may not be disclosed to anyone except to the extent necessary
to carry out the purposes of the review organization and is
not subject to subpoena or discovery. Except as provided in
(b) of this section, a person described in AS 18.23.020 may
not disclose what transpired at a meeting of a review
organization except to the extent necessary to carry out the
purposes of a review organization, and the proceedings and
records of a review organization are not subject to discovery
or introduction into evidence in a civil action against a
health care provider arising out of the matter that I the
subject of consideration by the review organization.
Information, documents, or records otherwise available from
original sources are not immune from discovery or use in a
civil action merely because they were presented during
proceedings of a review organization, nor may a person who
testified before a review organization or who is a member of
it be prevented from testifying as to matters within the
person's knowledge, but a witness may not be asked about
the witness's testimony before a review organization or
opinions formed by the witness as a result of its hearings,
except as provided in (b) of this section.[2]
Disclosure
of information and details deemed confidential under the
statute constitutes a misdemeanor.[3] The parties agree that the
Department of Corrections' peer review committee
qualifies as a ...