OH: court ordered hospital to produce info.: appellatecourt reversed trial court's order.

CASE FACTS: On March 8, 2005, Holly Mulkerin was admitted to Medina Hospital to undergo a diagnostic cardiac catheterization due to a history of chest discomfort. Dr. Donald Cho, who was to perform the procedure, characterized the patient as "low risk." Consequently, her procedure took

place in the hospital's "Low Risk Cardia Catheterization Laboratory," which opened in February of 2005. During the procedure, the patient suffered from a dissection to her left main coronary artery. Dr. Cho stopped the procedure and the patient was transported by helicopter to DMH Regional Medical Center in Elyria, Ohio, where she underwent emergency coronary artery by-pass surgery. The patient and her husband filed suit for medical malpractice against Dr. Cho, North Ohio Heart Center, and Medina Hospital. During the course of pre-trial discovery, the Mulkerins served interrogatories and a request for production of documents seeking information related to Medina Hospital's decision to establish the Low Risk Adult Catheterization Laboratory. The hospital objected to the discovery request, stating that the "information is immaterial and irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Further, the hospital contended that: "This interrogatory also requests information which is privileged and not subject to disclosure." The Mulkerins filed a motion to compel production of the information the hospital requested. The hospital contended that the information requested was irrelevant, privileged, confidential, and involved trade secrets. After a hearing, the trial court granted the Mulkerins' motion to compel the hospital to comply with the Mulkerins' requests. The hospital appealed.

COURT'S OPINION: The Court of Appeals of Ohio, finding for the hospital, reversed the order of the trial court. The court remanded the case back to the trial court for trial. The court held, inter alia, that the trial court had erred in failing to conduct an in camera review of the information and documents before compelling disclosure by the hospital. The court cited Ohio case precedents upholding the right of the hospital to have, at the very least, an in camera review of the material requested to enable the court to determine whether or not certain of the requested material constituted "trade secrets." Further, the court observed that the hospital's objection to certain material and documents requested by the Mulkerins were, in fact, privileged. In addition, the court determined that the hospital had no responsibility to demand an in camera hearing. However, it determined that the trial judge was required to hold an in camera hearing before issuing an order to compel the production of the material, which was the subject matter of the Mulkerins' motion. Mulkerin v. Cho, 20076-Ohio-6550 (12/10/2007) -OH

Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for over 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Rhode island firm of A, David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United Slates. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Regan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Marquis Who's Who in American Law, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World.