10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2006–2022 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ungurian, S. v. Beyzman, A., M.D.green2 sentences2022See Ungurian v. Beyzman, 232 A.3d 786, 800 (Pa.Super. 2020) (“Because the Patient Safety Committee includes members of the community served by Hospital, the Committee is not exclusively comprised of ‘professional healthcare providers.’ Accordingly, Hospital failed to satisfy its evidentiary burden of proving the applicability of the PRPA privilege to the Patient Safety Committee Meeting Minutes.”). 2022See Ungurian v. Beyzman, 232 A.3d 786, 800 (Pa.Super. 2020) (“Because the Patient Safety Committee includes members of the community served by Hospital, the Committee is not exclusively comprised of ‘professional healthcare providers.’ Accordingly, Hospital failed to satisfy its evidentiary burden of proving the applicability of the PRPA privilege to the Patient Safety Committee Meeting Minutes.”). | 4 | 4 |
Reginelli v. Marcellus Boggs, M.D., Monongahela Valley Hosp., Inc.green2 sentences2020Reginelli, 181 A.3d at 306 . 2019Thus, [323 MAL 2019] - 4 the PRPA’s immunity and confidentiality provisions reflect the legislature’s effort “to foster free and frank discussion by review organizations.” Id. (quoting Sanderson v. Frank S. Bryan, M.D., Ltd., 522 A.2d 1138, 1140 (Pa. Super. 1987)); see 63 P.S. § 425.1, Historical and Statutory Notes (“An Act providing for the increased use of peer review groups by giving protection to individuals and data who report to any review group.”). | 1 | 3 |
Yocabet v. UPMC Presbyteriangreen2 sentences2021See Yocabet, 119 A.3d at 1024 . 17 The PRPA privilege afforded to Excela as part of its peer review is not eviscerated when the professional health care provider, as part of its peer review process, contracts with an outside entity to review documents, analyze data, and compile a report of its findings for the benefit of the peer review committee or peer review organization. 2021See Yocabet, 119 A.3d at 1024 . 17 The PRPA privilege afforded to Excela as part of its peer review is not eviscerated when the professional health care provider, as part of its peer review process, contracts with an outside entity to review documents, analyze data, and compile a report of its findings for the benefit of the peer review committee or peer review organization. | 1 | 2 |
Leadbitter, J. v. Keystone Anesthesia v. Petragliagreen2 sentences2021See Leadbitter, 229 A.3d at 296 (“[T]o determine the applicability of the PRPA privilege, we must consider whether a ‘review organization’ or a ‘review committee’ reviewed the professional evaluations of Dr. Petraglia.”); Ungurian v. Beyzman, 232 A.3d 786, 800-01 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding the PRPA’s protections did not apply because the entity possessing the documents in question was a credentialing committee); Estate of Krappa v. Lyons, 211 A.3d 869, 875 (Pa. Super.) (expressing that the “PRPA’s protections do not extend to the credentialing committee’s materials, because this entity does no 2021See Leadbitter, 229 A.3d at 296 (“[T]o determine the applicability of the PRPA privilege, we must consider whether a ‘review organization’ or a ‘review committee’ reviewed the professional evaluations of Dr. Petraglia.”); Ungurian v. Beyzman, 232 A.3d 786, 800-01 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding the PRPA’s protections did not apply because the entity possessing the documents in question was a credentialing committee); Estate of Krappa v. Lyons, 211 A.3d 869, 875 (Pa. Super.) (expressing that the “PRPA’s protections do not extend to the credentialing committee’s materials, because this entity does no | 1 | 1 |
Est. of: Krappa, L. v. Lyons, M.green2 sentences2021See Leadbitter, 229 A.3d at 296 (“[T]o determine the applicability of the PRPA privilege, we must consider whether a ‘review organization’ or a ‘review committee’ reviewed the professional evaluations of Dr. Petraglia.”); Ungurian v. Beyzman, 232 A.3d 786, 800-01 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding the PRPA’s protections did not apply because the entity possessing the documents in question was a credentialing committee); Estate of Krappa v. Lyons, 211 A.3d 869, 875 (Pa. Super.) (expressing that the “PRPA’s protections do not extend to the credentialing committee’s materials, because this entity does no 2021See Leadbitter, 229 A.3d at 296 (“[T]o determine the applicability of the PRPA privilege, we must consider whether a ‘review organization’ or a ‘review committee’ reviewed the professional evaluations of Dr. Petraglia.”); Ungurian v. Beyzman, 232 A.3d 786, 800-01 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding the PRPA’s protections did not apply because the entity possessing the documents in question was a credentialing committee); Estate of Krappa v. Lyons, 211 A.3d 869, 875 (Pa. Super.) (expressing that the “PRPA’s protections do not extend to the credentialing committee’s materials, because this entity does no | 1 | 1 |
Sanderson v. Frank S. Bryan, M.D., Ltd.green1 sentence2019Thus, [323 MAL 2019] - 4 the PRPA’s immunity and confidentiality provisions reflect the legislature’s effort “to foster free and frank discussion by review organizations.” Id. (quoting Sanderson v. Frank S. Bryan, M.D., Ltd., 522 A.2d 1138, 1140 (Pa. Super. 1987)); see 63 P.S. § 425.1, Historical and Statutory Notes (“An Act providing for the increased use of peer review groups by giving protection to individuals and data who report to any review group.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cooper v. Delaware Valley Medical Center
green
2 sentences2019We note that our Supreme Court has clarified that hospitals, as corporate persons, may be granted immunity under Section 425.3(a) of the PRPA for “providing relevant and truthful information to peer review committees.” Cooper, 539 Pa. at 632 , 654 A.2d at 553 . 2019We note that our Supreme Court has clarified that hospitals, as corporate persons, may be granted immunity under Section 425.3(a) of the PRPA for “providing relevant and truthful information to peer review committees.” Cooper, 539 Pa. at 632 , 654 A.2d at 553 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Dodson v. Deleo
green
1 sentence2018Although the Superior Court provided no further information, the trial court's assertion in this regard was based upon the proposition that "[t]he PRPA privilege, like other privileges, applies only to information which remains exclusive." Trial Ct. Op., 11/25/2014, at 2 (citing Dodson v. DeLeo , 872 A.2d 1237 , 1243 (Pa. Super. 2005) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
McClellan v. Health Maintenace Organization
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
National Construction Services, Inc. v. Philadelphia Regional Port Authority
green
1 sentence2006The trial court relied on our decision in National Construction Services, Inc. v. Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, 789 A.2d 306 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001), in determining that PRPA was not a Commonwealth agency. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.