New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PAYTON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-040-027, Claim No. 111384


Synopsis


Court ordered production of a certain report for in camera inspection. Upon review of the document, the Court concludes that it was prepared as required under Public Health Law § 2805 J, K, L & M and Education Law § 6527, and that the information is privileged and confidential and does not have to be provided to Claimant.

Case Information

UID:
2009-040-027
Claimant(s):
NOEL PAYTON
Claimant short name:
PAYTON
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111384
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
CHRISTOPHER J. MCCARTHY
Claimant’s attorney:
BAUMAN & KUNKIS, P.C.By: Roger M. Kunkis, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Daniel Chu, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
April 6, 2009
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

By this Court’s prior Decision and Order (Payton v State of New York, 21 Misc 3d 1143[A] [Ct Cl 2008]), the State was directed to produce a Patient Safety Net (PSN) report for in camera inspection. The State has complied with the order and the Court has reviewed the submitted document.


The Claim alleges that, on September 24, 2004 between 4:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., Claimant, who was a patient at Stony Brook University Hospital and Medical Center (hereinafter Stony Brook Hospital), fell out of bed causing her to sustain serious and permanent personal injuries as a result of Defendant’s negligence and medical malpractice.

In response to the Court’s prior motion Decision and Order, Defendant provided the Court with a copy of the PSN Administrative Review, dated March 10, 2006, relating to the subject incident. Pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3), certain documents generated in connection with the “performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function” or which are “required by the department of health pursuant to section twenty-eight hundred five-l” of the Public Health Law are generally not discoverable (Ross v Northern Westchester Hosp. Assn., 43 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2d Dept 2007]; see Marte v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 9 AD3d 41, 42 [2d Dept 2004]).

The Court has conducted an in camera review of the document for which the Defendant asserts a privilege. The Court concludes that the PSN was prepared by Defendant’s hospital as required under Public Health Law § 2805 j, k, l and m and Education Law § 6527. Therefore, since the Court concludes that the information is privileged and confidential, Defendant does not have to provide the information to Claimant.


April 6, 2009
Albany, New York

HON. CHRISTOPHER J. MCCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims