596 JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY
confidentiality concerns under most, if not all,
circumstances.’”^105 On the other hand, the court cited a section
from the New Jersey statute commonly referred to as the
“Patient Bill of Rights”^106 as support for the proposition that
patients have a “right to know... what happened to them while
in a hospital.”^107
Defendants and amicus curiae New Jersey Hospital
Association (“NJHA”) argued that if the court allowed
disclosure of factual materials, it would lead hospitals to simply
exclude them in future peer review documents.^108 The court
rejected this contention as “contrary to the reasoning in both
McClain and Payton,”^109 questioning whether facts, which
“provide the basis” for self-critical analysis, would be excluded
“simply because [they are] discoverable.”^110 Defendants also
argued that plaintiff in any event failed to show a “compelling
need” for the reports, to which the court responded that “[t]he
availability of relevant facts from multiple sources has never in
and of itself prevented discovery.... It is not unusual to find
subtle differences in both testimony and documented facts,
which support an argument bearing on credibility.”^111 The court
therefore held that the plaintiff need not make a showing of
compelling need to access the factual material of the documents
and ordered their disclosure. The court even ordered disclosure
of a so-called “deliberative” portion concerning the inability of
the committee to reach a resolution on an issue due to “missing
information” because the court believed it could reasonably lead
to discovery.^112
(^105) Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Payton, 691 A.2d at 333).
(^106) See N.J. STAT. ANN. § 26:2H-12.8(c) (West 2007) (empowering a
patient with the right “[t]o obtain from the physician complete, current
information concerning his diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in terms he
can reasonably be expected to understand”).
(^107) Christy, 841 A.2d at 940.
(^108) Id. at 939.
(^109) Id. at 941.
(^110) Id. at 942.
(^111) Id. at 941–42.
(^112) Id. “We are convinced that [defendants] would not be prejudiced by
disclosure, notwithstanding its deliberative nature, because the peer review