# Yocabet v. UPMC Presbyterian

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 5, 2015 · 119 A.3d 1012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9807970

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael J. YOCABET, Appellee, v. UPMC PRESBYTERIAN and University of Pittsburgh Physicians, Appeal of UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside; Christina L. Mecannic, Appellee, v. UPMC Presbyterian and University of Pittsburgh Physicians, Appeal of UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 5, 2015
- **Citations:** 119 A.3d 1012; 2015 WL 3533851
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Strassburger
- **Judges:** Bowes, Olson, Strassburger
- **Cited by:** 53 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/9807970

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that discovery order was appealable since the appealing party asserted that order required it to reveal documents purportedly protected under the peer-review and attorney-client privileges and ruling that if “a party is ordered to produce materials purportedly subject …
- holding that discovery order was appealable since the appellant asserted that order required it to reveal documents purportedly protected under the peer-review and attorney-client privileges- and stating that if “a party is ordered to produce materials .purportedly subject to …
- finding that since board meeting may have been called to seek legal advice - 15 - J-A18011-19 from the lawyers present, it was improper to reject outright the privilege without examination of the factual basis for application of the privilege
- stating that peer review procedures for evaluation can be performed by outside entities at the behest of the professional health care provider

## Opinion text

*1030 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
STRASSBURGER, J.:
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, 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. Con-cordia 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9807970. Public record. Not legal advice.