In re Motion to Quash Mercy Hospital Evidence

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2012 ME 66 Docket: Cum-12-230 Considered On Briefs: May 16, 2012 Decided: May 16, 2012 Panel: Reporter of Decisions SAUFLEY, C.J., and SILVER, JABAR, and CLIFFORD, JJ. IN RE MOTION TO QUASH MERCY HOSPITAL EVIDENCE SAUFLEY, C.J. [¶1] Mercy Hospital has filed an appeal from an order entered in the Unified Criminal Docket (Cumberland County, Wheeler, J.), in the matter of the State of Maine v. Ernest Weidul, CR-10-3000, denying Mercy s motion for a protective order related to several Mercy witnesses. In support of its motion, Mercy asserted two statutory privileges: 22 M.R.S. § 8754(3) (2011) (sentinel event notifications and reports) and 24 M.R.S. § 2510-A (2011) (professional competence review records). [¶2] Because the appeal was brought from an interlocutory order of the trial court, we would ordinarily dismiss the appeal sua sponte. To allow Mercy to be heard, however, we entered an order directing Mercy to show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed. Both Mercy and Weidul filed written arguments for our consideration. The State reports that it takes no position. 2 [¶3] Having thoroughly considered the parties arguments, the relevant legal precedent, and policy considerations regarding legal process in Maine courts, we conclude that Mercy s appeal must be dismissed as an interlocutory appeal to which no exception to the final judgment rule applies. See In re Willoughby, 487 A.2d 636, 638 (Me. 1985); see, e.g., Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. ---, 175 L. Ed. 2d 458 (2009); United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530 (1971); Kansas Med. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty, 244 P.3d 642, 653-56 (Kan. 2010). The entry is: Appeal dismissed. On the briefs: Steven L. Johnson, Esq., Kozak & Gayer, P.A., Augusta, for appellant Mercy Hospital Thomas J. Connolly, Esq., Portland, for appellee Ernest Weidul The State of Maine did not file a brief Cumberland County Unified Criminal Docket docket number CR-2010-3000 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.