The opinion
J-A04009-15
J-A04010-15
2015 PA Super 132
MICHAEL J. YOCABET, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND :
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH :
PHYSICIANS :
:
APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN :
SHADYSIDE, :
:
Appellant :
:
:
CHRISTINA L. MECANNIC, :
:
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND :
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH :
PHYSICIANS :
:
APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN :
SHADYSIDE, :
:
Appellant : No. 569 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered March 11, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Civil Division at No(s): G.D. NO. 11-19112, G.D. NO. 11-19113
MICHAEL J. YOCABET, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
J-A04009-15
J-A04010-15
:
UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND :
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH :
PHYSICIANS :
:
APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN :
SHADYSIDE, :
:
Appellant :
:
:
CHRISTINA L. MECANNIC, :
:
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
UPMC PRESBYTERIAN AND :
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH :
PHYSICIANS :
:
APPEAL OF: UPMC PRESBYTERIAN :
SHADYSIDE, :
:
Appellant : No. 1230 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered June 26, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Civil Division at No(s): G.D. NO. 11-19112, G.D. NO. 11-19113
BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,∗ JJ.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.:
FILED: June 5, 2015
For the reasons provided by the Majority, I too would affirm the March
11, 2014 order. I therefore join Part II of the Majority Opinion. However,
∗
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
-2-
J-A04009-15
J-A04010-15
unlike the Majority, I also would affirm the June 26, 2014 order. Thus, I
dissent to Part III of the Majority Opinion.
As to the June 26, 2014 order, I agree with the trial court’s
assessment of UPMC’s attorney-client-privilege argument. UPMC did not
claim that Ms. Concordia is a lawyer, and nothing in the record would permit
a finding that her presentation to the Board was a discussion with legal
counsel. For these reasons, I conclude that the trial court properly
determined that the attorney-client privilege does not protect the
information the plaintiffs sought in requests 23 and 24.
I further note that the trial court refused to address UPMC’s claim that
the information in-question was protected by the peer review privilege,
essentially because UPMC failed to present the court with a developed
argument in support of that claim. Because I agree with the court, I believe
the peer review privilege is not grounds for relief concerning the June 26th
order.
For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s orders.
-3-