Lantry, III v. Kendall, No. 23-473, 2024 WL 1366788 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2024) (Moss, J.)

Lantry, III v. Kendall, No. 23-473, 2024 WL 1366788 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2024) (Moss, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning defendant’s review board’s finding that plaintiff committed malpractice when caring for patient during medical transport in 2014

Disposition:  Granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s FOIA claim

• Exemption 3; Procedural Requirements, “Reasonably Segregable” Obligation:  “The Court will . . . grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants with respect to Plaintiff’s FOIA claim.”  “The court relates that “Defendants contend that 10 U.S.C. § 1102 prohibits the disclosure of the records Plaintiff requests and, thus, provides a sound basis for withholding the records under Exemption 3.”  “Section 1102 provides that ‘[m]edical quality assurance records created by or for the Department of Defense as part of a medical quality assurance program are confidential and privileged’ and that ‘[s]uch records may not be disclosed to any person or entity,’ except as permitted under certain exceptions.”  “None of those exceptions apply here . . . and, to the contrary, the statute unambiguously declares that the ‘[m]edical quality assurance records’ protected under § 1102(a) ‘may not be made available to any person under’ FOIA . . . .”  “Clearer statutory language is seldom, if ever, found.”  “According to Defendants, all of the records that Plaintiff requests – that is, ‘all documents . . . collected by the Air Force Medical Practice Review Board [(“MPRB”)]’ associated with ‘the malpractice claim’ arising from the September 4, 2014 flight . . . – are ‘medical quality assurance records,’ as defined by § 1102.”  “That is the case, Defendants explain, because, under the terms of the statute, a ‘medical quality assurance record’ includes ‘proceedings, records, minutes, and reports that emanate from quality assurance program activities . . . and are produced or compiled by the Department of Defense as part of a medical quality assurance program.’”  “A ‘medical quality assurance program’ is, in turn, defined by the statute as:  ‘[A]ny peer review activity carried out . . . for the Department of Defense to assess the quality of medical care, including activities conducted by . . . review bodies responsible for quality assurance, credentials, . . . and identification and prevention of medical or dental incidents and risks.’”  “The Medical Practice Review Board’s process for considering claims of medical malpractice, Defendants argue, meets this definition of a medical quality assurance program.”  “The Court agrees.”  “If the MPRB’s review process, as described by [“the principal USAF internal guidance document that pertains to its investigation of medical malpractice claims like the one relevant here”], qualifies as a ‘medical quality assurance program,’ it follows that the records Plaintiff requests are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.”
  
  “In response, Plaintiff advances two arguments as to why – even if the MPRB process constitutes a medical quality assurance program in some respects – the records he seeks nevertheless fall outside the statutory definition of ‘medical quality assurance records.’”  “First, he contends that the USAF’s conclusion that all the records he seeks were ‘medical quality assurance records’ is overbroad because ‘information existing or originating outside of a quality assurance program does not become confidential and privileged merely by incorporating it into a quality assurance record.’”  “But that argument ignores the statutory text and the nature of the records that Plaintiff actually seeks.”  “Beginning with the language of the statute itself, § 1102 defines ‘medical quality assurance record’ broadly to include ‘the proceedings, records, minutes, and reports that emanate from quality assurance program activities . . . and are produced or compiled by the Department of Defense as part of a medical quality assurance program.’”  “This definition includes materials that did not originate with the quality assurance program but that were collected or assembled as part of the program’s peer review process.”  For factual reasons, the court finds that “Plaintiff’s second argument is no more persuasive.”  The court rejects plaintiff’s argument that “even if the process outlined by [“the principal USAF internal guidance document that pertains to its investigation of medical malpractice claims”] does constitute a ‘medical quality assurance program,’ Defendants have not met their burden of showing that that process applied to the medical malpractice claim made against him.”
  
  “[T]he Court offers two final observations.”  “First, because the documents are, by their very nature, exempted from disclosure, it would not be possible for the agency to segregate and release any non-exempt material from the exempt medical quality assurance records.”  “Second, FOIA’s foreseeable-harm requirement does not apply to the ‘disclosure of information prohibited from disclosure by law, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under’ Exemption 3.”