Alba v. Marietta Mem. Hosp.

From Conservapedia

In Alba v. Marietta Mem. Hosp., 2000-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P72,774 (6th Cir. Jan. 6, 2000), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rendered a decision against plaintiff that was supportive of a plaintiff's right to obtain discovery of confidential documents used in peer review.

The underlying facts arose from the curtailment of Dr. Alba's surgical privileges by the hospital, and his subsequent legal challenge to that peer review action. Ultimately the federal courts ruled against Dr. Alba and rejected his claims.

Specifically, the Sixth Circuit held that Dr. Alba should have been able to uncover peer review documents earlier despite state law providing for the confidentiality of such documents. Based on the passage of time without Dr. Alba uncovering those documents, the statute of limitations had expired and his claim was time-barred:^[1]

Dr. Alba maintains that an exercise of due diligence would have been futile considering the defendants' alleged control over documents which would have led to his discovery of wrongdoing. For his contention that he would not have been granted access to the peer review documents after July 12, 1984, Dr. Alba states that prior to LeMasters v. The Christ Hospital, 791 F. Supp. 188 (S.D. Ohio 1991), which held that peer review information was not privileged from a physician, no court in the Sixth Circuit had addressed the issue of the discoverability of peer review documents. However, as the district court held:

However, even though the LeMasters case was a case of first impression in this Circuit, the LeMasters court cited to and relied upon other circuit and district court cases, which predated 1984, and which affirmed the discoverability of peer review documents. The District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted a plaintiff's motion to compel production of peer review report, in spite of a Michigan statute purporting to establish "absolute" privilege, in Dorsten v. LaPeer County General Hospital, 88 F.R.D. 583 (E.D. Mich. 1980). See, also Memorial Hospital v. McHenry County v. Shadur, 664 F.2d 1058 (7th Cir. 1981) (also cited in LeMasters and holding that privilege against discovery did not extend to hospital in federal antitrust action given the public interest in the private enforcement of federal antitrust laws). Thus, had Plaintiff and his counsel sued in 1984 for the alleged wrongdoing in restricting his surgical privileges, it is reasonable to assume that he would have uncovered the evidence which he has today uncovered as a result of suing in 1994 See Dayco, 523 F.2d at 394 ("the means of knowledge are the same thing [in effect] as knowledge itself") (citing Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135, 143, 25 L. Ed. 807 [(1879)].

Plaintiff's only excuse for sitting idly by from 1985 to 1993 is that he was unaware of the existence of a conspiracy or any fraudulent conduct. However, he believed that he was wronged and treated unfairly, and his lawyer suspected at least an anticompetitive if not antitrust purpose, all in 1984. Due diligence requires more than sitting idly by until the facts are someday revealed to you. See Campbell v. Upjohn Co., 676 F.2d 1122, 1128 (6th Cir. 1982). Whatever it requires, it is clear that due diligence requires something more than what Plaintiff did in this case.

(quoting Alba v. Marietta Mem'l Hosp., 184 F.R.D. 280, 290 (S.D. Ohio 1998).