Can hospitals protect incident reports from discovery with conclusory affidavits? Cannon v. Salt Lake Regional Medical Center Explained

In Cannon v. Salt Lake Regional Medical Center, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a hospital’s bare affidavit was sufficient to establish the care review privilege under Utah Code sections 26-25-1 and 26-25-3, protecting incident reports from discovery in a medical malpractice case.

Background and Facts

The Cannons brought a medical malpractice lawsuit against Salt Lake Regional Medical Center following Gary Cannon’s death after a fall in his hospital room. During discovery, the Cannons requested incident reports related to the fall. The hospital objected, claiming the reports were protected under Utah’s care review privilege. The hospital supported its claim solely with an affidavit from its risk manager asserting that incident reports were created exclusively for quality assurance purposes. The trial court denied the motion to compel based on this uncontroverted affidavit.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether an affidavit containing conclusory statements tracking statutory language provides an adequate evidentiary basis for establishing the care review privilege. The court also considered what standard should apply when determining privilege claims in discovery disputes.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the risk manager’s affidavit insufficient. Drawing on Benson v. I.H.C. Hospitals Inc. and Madsen v. United Television, Inc., the court emphasized that parties claiming privilege must establish an adequate evidentiary basis. The affidavit contained only “bald assertions” that tracked statutory language without providing specific details about the reports’ content, use, or circulation. The court noted that accepting such conclusory statements would give hospitals a “virtual monopoly” on determining discoverability.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that parties asserting statutory privileges must provide more than formulaic affidavits. Courts should conduct in camera review when privilege claims lack adequate evidentiary support. The ruling protects against overbroad privilege assertions while recognizing legitimate interests in maintaining confidential quality assurance processes. For practitioners, this case demonstrates the importance of providing detailed, specific evidence when claiming privilege rather than relying on conclusory statements that merely track statutory language.