Different Standards for Self-Critical Analysis Privilege: What You Need to Know

11 May 2015 Dashboard Insights Blog

In a recent March 19, 2015 decision, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to acknowledge the self-critical analysis privilege. This recent discussion underscores the need to understand the different standards for the privilege in each jurisdiction a company operates under and the importance of the proactive steps to safeguard privilege detailed in our November 13, 2014 post, Protecting Your Safety Investigations and Deliberations from Prying Eyes. Illinois now joins a number of states, such as Indiana and Rhode Island, that have refused to adopt the privilege absent legislative authority.

In Harris v. One Hope United, Inc., 2015 IL 117200, the Illinois Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the self-critical analysis privilege applied to “Priority Review” reports or quality control reports created by an agency within the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), One Hope. In this case – based on the death of an infant whose family was participating in rehabilitation services provided by One Hope – the plaintiff sought the Priority Review reports that evaluated whether One Hope’s services were professionally sound.

One Hope argued that protecting the documents was in line with the intent of the Illinois Child Death Review Team Act and consistent with the purpose behind a similar statutory privilege found in the Illinois Medical Studies Act. In denying expansion of the privilege, the court relied on prior Illinois precedent that discouraged the use of privileges against disclosure because they hindered the “truth seeking function” of litigation and because expansions of such privileges were best left to the legislature. But most importantly, the court conducted a thorough review of the legislative intent behind the two state statutes highlighted by One Hope.

In the end, the court held that the legislature’s failure to extend the current privileges to these types of circumstances along with the intent of these Acts showed that the legislature did not intend to expand any self- critical analysis privilege. The court further noted that when one looks at other privileges, such as the deliberative process privilege, that had been adopted by the court, these privileges had overwhelming federal support as well as a clear intent expressed in state statutes and regulations. In contrast, the court found that the self-critical analysis privilege continues to be inconsistently adopted in various federal jurisdictions and lacks the requisite state regulatory and statutory support.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ