# Yocabet, M. v. UPMC

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 5, 2015

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2806002

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 5, 2015
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2806002

## Opinion text

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-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2806002. Public record. Not legal advice.